--- "Peter T. Daniels" <
grammatim@...>
wrote:
> 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.
There is no governing body to check facts. That is for
the contributors. Anybody can edit the articles and
each article has a "talk page" where anybody can take
issue with the contents of the article. This can be
used to present checked facts, for peer review. And of
course anybody can edit any time.
There may be a catch on your editing the article on
a term you devised but I'm not sure - I'd have to read
a bit. But that would be to preserve impartiality, not
to enforce a lack of care in content. Wikipedia cares
very much about what it point of view (POV).
You would certainly be welcome to comment in the talk
pages on what's wrong with the articles and you could
certainly edit the articles for the terms you didn't
invent (such as "alphabet"). You may be allowed to
edit the articles on those you did but one of us ought
to check first.
Andrew Dunbar.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels
> grammatim@...
>
=====
http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl http://www.abisource.com
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com