Andrew Dunbar wrote:

>
> --- "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > Michael Everson wrote:
> > >
> > > At 19:05 -0400 2004-08-01, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > > > It may be annoying that meanings get changed,
> > > > > and thus in the interim wind up with two
> > > > > conflicting meanings for the same word used
> > > > > by different groups, but that's life, and
> > > > > that's language for you.
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice if change had occurred because
> > > > the terms came into general use, but AFAIK they
> > > > didn't, and there isn't a body of evidence
> > > > behind the changed (as opposed to revised)
> > > > definitions.
> > >
> > > Check the Wikipedia. Alphabet, abjad, and abugida
> > > are all there.
> >
> > They were quoted to me on sci.lang, and they turned
> > out to be crap, and several people offered to
> > correct them for me. (It was thought that me
> > editing an entry in which I was mentioned would
> > ruffle some editorial feathers, which apparently
> > don't care about content but are very picky about
> > attributions.)
>
> I'd say it's an unfortunate side-effect of Wikipedia's
> principle of being strictly a secondary source and
> never a primary source. An encyclopedia is for
> collecting what is already known. Not for publishing
> one's own findings. Saying Wikipedia doesn't care
> about content is a pretty ignorant view.

I can only go by the bits of it that have been quoted at me.

I understand that the policy is anyone can contribute anything they
want, and there is no fact-checking, peer review, or editing.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...