From: Andrew Dunbar
Message: 3421
Date: 2004-08-07
> Andrew Dunbar wrote:There is no governing body to check facts. That is for
> >
> > --- "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@...
>