5 ms·

If I say Marxism, I can skip the explanation. People know what Marxism is. It enhances communication. If I say Inverted Totalitarianism, I have to explain what

by jpttsn 13y ago

If I say Marxism, I can skip the explanation. People know what Marxism is. It enhances communication. If I say Inverted Totalitarianism, I have to explain what I mean by that. Based on that, Wikipedia should not be the second step after an author invents a word. Marxism didn't end up in the Encyclopaedia as soon as Marx published. Useful -isms are not established by authors, but by people who discuss them.

judk 13y ago
If debate here is any guide, "Marxism" is not a well understood term than enhances ccommunication.
- jpttsn 13y ago
  I don't know much about Marxism. Here, it's just a token -ism, as an example. Context matters of course; even so many -isms are ambiguous and should be avoided.
coldtea 13y ago
>If I say Marxism, I can skip the explanation. People know what Marxism is. It enhances communication. You missed my whole point, which is that by your own standards, "marxism" shouldn't have entered the language in the first place, since in 1880 you couldn't "skip the explanation" and people didn't know what marxism was. In short: that some terms are established and widespread is no argument against creating and using newer terms. The establised terms also began as fringe and unknown themselves. That's how language is enriched. >Based on that, Wikipedia should not be the second step after an author invents a word. Marxism didn't end up in the Encyclopaedia as soon as Marx published. Well the 11th edition of Britannica (1910) has an entry, a mere 23 years before the first use of the term. We are 10 year from Wolin's work (2003), which makes it quite comparable, if not sluggish compated to Britannica, given that they didn't have as fast tranfer of information as we have today, nor as easy a process of making new edition as online publishing offers. >Useful -isms are not established by authors, but by people who discuss them. Nope, that's a populist argument. Usually nobody discusses most -isms and philosophical terms but a small percentage of scholars, authors and intellectuals. Still they appear in dictionaries, encyclopaedias, wikipedia, and elsewhere.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jpttsn 13y ago
  I'm not actually stupid/suggesting a ban on new words. I argue the new word should be accepted once it's proven useful. That doesn't start with the dictionary. I don't think it's a matter of time or bandwidth; you can surely find authors who published at the same time as Marx and we're not in the dictionary 23 years later. Also, note I distinguish useful isms.

by jpttsn 13y ago

judk 13y ago

If debate here is any guide, "Marxism" is not a well understood term than enhances ccommunication.

jpttsn 13y ago
I don't know much about Marxism. Here, it's just a token -ism, as an example. Context matters of course; even so many -isms are ambiguous and should be avoided.

coldtea 13y ago

>If I say Marxism, I can skip the explanation. People know what Marxism is. It enhances communication. You missed my whole point, which is that by your own standards, "marxism" shouldn't have entered the language in the first place, since in 1880 you couldn't "skip the explanation" and people didn't know what marxism was. In short: that some terms are established and widespread is no argument against creating and using newer terms. The establised terms also began as fringe and unknown themselves. That's how language is enriched. >Based on that, Wikipedia should not be the second step after an author invents a word. Marxism didn't end up in the Encyclopaedia as soon as Marx published. Well the 11th edition of Britannica (1910) has an entry, a mere 23 years before the first use of the term. We are 10 year from Wolin's work (2003), which makes it quite comparable, if not sluggish compated to Britannica, given that they didn't have as fast tranfer of information as we have today, nor as easy a process of making new edition as online publishing offers. >Useful -isms are not established by authors, but by people who discuss them. Nope, that's a populist argument. Usually nobody discusses most -isms and philosophical terms but a small percentage of scholars, authors and intellectuals. Still they appear in dictionaries, encyclopaedias, wikipedia, and elsewhere.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jpttsn 13y ago
I'm not actually stupid/suggesting a ban on new words. I argue the new word should be accepted once it's proven useful. That doesn't start with the dictionary. I don't think it's a matter of time or bandwidth; you can surely find authors who published at the same time as Marx and we're not in the dictionary 23 years later. Also, note I distinguish useful isms.