Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Is Not Amused By Entry For xkcd-Coined Word
ObsessiveMathsFreak writes "Today's xkcd comic introduced an unusual word — malamanteau — by giving its supposed definition on Wikipedia. The only trouble is that the word (as well as its supposed wiki page) did not in fact exist. Naturally, much ado ensued at the supposed wiki page, which was swiftly created in response to the comic. This article has more on how the comic and the confusion it caused have put the Net in a tizzy. It turns out that a malamanteau is a portmanteau of portmanteau and malapropism, but also a malapropism of portmanteau. All this puts Wikipedia in the confusing position of not allowing a page for an undefined word whose meaning is defined via the Wikipedia page for that word — and now I have to lie down for a moment."
Malapropism means to use a word in place of another word that makes the same sound, but doesn’t deliver an appropriate meaning, for example, odorous for odious, comprehended for apprehended and auspicious for suspicious and benefactors for malefactors. All these are Malapropos of each other. Now the second word portmanteau means to merge two words with each other in such a way that the sounds of the two words become merged as well as their meanings. In this case malamanteau is a portmanteau of portmanteau and Malapropism, whereas malamanteau is also a Malapropos of portmanteau. The meaning of the new word is still to be created properly.
I still think that the most scary(And interesting) part is that google now have 152,000 hits for the word. So a: Google is fast at picking up new words. It really generated a lot of interest and there are quite some spammers with some effective automatic page generation systems.
There is a possibly apocryphal tale of two gentlemen in England int he 18th century who made a bet that in 48 hours a new word could be entered into the English Language. One found every ragged street urchin in London, handed him some chalk and showed him how to write "quiz". Soon Graffiti adorned every wall and park bench and by the next day it was on every lip.
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
So, I use Wikipedia on a daily basis for quick reference and as a jumping point to the sources. However, as a community/culture, I think its really just sort of gotten out of hand. Arguing for pages and pages about something which is really sort of inconsequential? Who do they think they are, Slashdot? (but seriously...). I first realized a few years ago that there was no point in trying to actually participate when I watched a revision war/flame fest between some random Swedish guy and an exchange student friend of mine who was from Georgia (the country), over stuff in the Georgia article. J. Random Swede decided that being born in a country, growing up there, and having had 20+ years of first-hand experience wasn't good enough to contribue some relatively minor points to the article, iirc. It turned into quite the little bru-ha-ha between Soso (my friend) and that guy, who wasn't exactly a Slavic languages and culture scholar himself, either. There is some value in wikipedia, but not enough to justify a bunch of bored, pissed-off nerds thumping around like some stiff-collar Britannica editors at the East India Club.
An internet forum is debating the proper formalism for creating neologisms on a user-edited encyclopedia.
Would I even be able to give my grandmother the slightest glimmer of what this is about?
The Far Side is, as well. Dilbert is somewhere in between them and xkcd, where it makes references to other funny material, but does have significant originality and creativity. Then there's xkcd, which is unoriginal,
My test is this. I work in a scientific establishment - not a super-geeky-web type place but an "old established science" type place. Over the last 2-5 years, "xkcd's on the door" have largely replaced the yellowing Far Sides... maybe about 1/4 of the doors around here are thus infected independent of each other.
On my own door is this and let me tell you I get more people just stopping to say how funny that is -old guys nearing retirement shaking with laughter and saying "how true" - than with any cartoon I've had up over the years.
Hey, I still think Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia are more useful for non-political-correct things, than Wikipedia and its false moral rules ever can be.
Face it: Wikipedia is a monarchy. What does not please the gods, does not get in. And this is why it’s fundamentally flawed: It’s centralized. I mean the one who thought that up must have never looked back at history. Ever.
It needs to peer-to-peer. It needs to be built upon a trust network. Or it will never surpass what is essentially a dictatorship over mindsets and ideas.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Way back when the Net was new to most people I'd do this to teachers. Simply make up words, add them to a couple online dictionaries, and sprinkle them around the web. Then i could include nonsense words in papers and when teachers called me on it I'd challenge them to go look it up. Lots of fun and soon I was credited with having an excellent vocabulary.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Comprehension is not your strong point, is it? He said "is that it refuses to create strict rules and follow them". No-one said anything about an absence of rules. Indeed, there are legions of people whose sole contributions to Wikipedia are in the WP: namespace, rule-writing and wiki-lawyering...
Comment removed based on user account deletion