|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Bel,
They must figure that since the word doesn't exist, you won't be looking it up -- on the other hand, if someone challenges you when you use it, why, it's right there in the dictionary!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
Besides, it's too long for scrabble.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
Ya, but some of us flip through the dictionary just for the fun of it.
*sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
People use these books as references because they want to confirm a definition/spelling or they're looking to learn. bel, this is the exact reason I've given up Wikipedia. I was SO mad when I found out it's not necessarily reliable. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
>>People use these books as references because they want to confirm a definition/spelling or they're looking to learn.
bel, this is the exact reason I've given up Wikipedia. I was SO mad when I found out it's not necessarily reliable.<<
Hold on a minute. Do you think the inclusion of a single carefully constructed mountweazel might not just indicate a high degree of professionalism and care? Might not copyright protection serve to ensure the integrity of the material? The only real harm would be to emerge with parched throat from the desert to find the well on the map was not on the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
>>Hold on a minute. Do you think the inclusion of a single carefully constructed mountweazel might not just indicate a high degree of professionalism and care?
NO. It implies a selfish disregard for the user of their product. Let's protect ourselves at the expense of our reader, who turns to us for the facts.
>>Might not copyright protection serve to ensure the integrity of the material?
No. A document doesn't have integrity when it is not accurate. Making sure people don't copy you doesn't make you exact, or more reliable, it just makes you un-copy-able.
Say they didn't have "esquivalience" in the dictionary, would that make them less accurate, or more accurate? It would definitely be more accurate.
And if somebody copied them because they didn't have esquivalience, would that diminish their acuracy? No it wouldn't, not one whit.
The copier is not my concern. A cheater is a cheater and I have no truck with that. I turn to a dictionary because I believe what they tell us has merit and is exact.
If you take the trouble to use the OED, you expect it to be reliable - it's not Billy-Bob's dikshinary of werds for heaven's sake.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
>>it's not Billy-Bob's dikshinary of werds for heaven's sake<<
Exactly right. And it's only by exercising some control over reproduction that it won't move in the direction of becoming that. Or such might also be their thinking. You do have a point about disregard of the user, although I think the term, in the case of the dictionary, at least, is a bit way too strong; but that doesn't argue that they were being careless. I doubt users will be staying away in droves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
>>>And it's only by exercising some control over reproduction that it won't move in the direction of becoming that.
I really don't understand that Insel. How does making sure nobody copies them ensure that they don't fall into mediocrity? As long as they stick to rigorous standards of exactitude and fact, everybody and his brother could copy them and it doesn’t diminish their quality in the least.
If they add fake words willy-nilly, even the one, they are specifically responsible for diminishing the veracity of the work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
>> How does making sure nobody copies them ensure that they don't fall into mediocrity? << The same way that The Gutenberg Project ( http://gutenberg.org) has a downside. While it is responsible for the wide distribution of lots of good books, it will also be responsible for the distribution of lots of errata.* The upside of copyright, in this respect, is its literally conservative effect. I think the question is what the publishers actually hope to accomplish with these mountweazel--and how well these serve to prevent what sorts of infringements and protect reference materials generally. I don't know the answers, so I don't know whether your objection is well founded or not. I admit, though, that I was also disturbed by the disclosure. This is just how I reconciled myself to it. *similar to the "Wikipedia 'problem'"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104 |
I doubt users will be staying away in droves.
Users may not be staying away in droves, Inselpeter, but the rest of us are sorely tempted.
Believe me!
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,810
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
458
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
