3 ms·
"current Wordle technology" is one of the things that made it so great -- it was /is client-side. I understand that NYT didn't want to step in it, and it was p
by ISL 4y ago
"current Wordle technology" is one of the things that made it so great -- it was /is client-side.
I understand that NYT didn't want to step in it, and it was probably a smart decision, but I'd love to live in a world where the editor chose to say, "Well, we defined that word list many months ago and it happened to come up today. The public reaction to today's Wordle simply emphasizes the fact that words, even a single word, matter."
- slowmovintarget 4y agoThe "we" wouldn't be The New York Times, though. The "we" was Wardle's girlfriend.
- jaywalk 4y agoThis word, in this context, should not matter. It is essentially a random word, inserted far in advance, that happens to relate to current events. The fact that it matters to anyone here is a symptom of the severe societal illness that publications like the NYT are helping to spread. How long until dictionaries and textbooks are forced to change the definition of "fetus" because it makes some people uncomfortable to admit that a human embryo becomes a fetus at nine weeks of development?
- djur 4y agoThis has nothing to do with the definition of the word and everything to do with NYT not wanting to be perceived as injecting political commentary into a politically neutral product.
- jaywalk 4y agoI understand that, and agree with putting out an editor's note about it. I just think that the second sentence in the example editor's note provided should not be necessary, and the simple explanation of what happened should be sufficient.