Wikipedia articles about euphemisms and doublespeak
Larry Sanger
I see that on this group there has been quite a bit of discussion of
the notion of euphemisms. Well, I'm one of the organizers of a free
encyclopedia project, Wikipedia, and we've got two articles that need
work:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Euphemism
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Doublespeak
Lately, people have been working on those articles. I'm not really
sure that the accounts given there are very reliable, though, so I'm
soliciting your help. Wikipedia is a collaborative, public
encyclopedia, free to anyone to read and redistribute, and free to
anyone to work on. This might sound crazy, but really it's not,
because we are constantly checking and editing *each other's* work.
So, we cater to the highest common denominator in any given area.
Thanks for any help!
Larry Sanger, Ph.D.
Wikipedia main organizer
Robert Lieblich
>
> Hi,
>
> I see that on this group there has been quite a bit of discussion of
> the notion of euphemisms. Well, I'm one of the organizers of a free
> encyclopedia project, Wikipedia, and we've got two articles that need
> work:
>
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Euphemism
> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Doublespeak
I looked at both. The "Euphemism" article seems unobjectionable,
but it's so terse as to be little more than a dictionary
definition. The examples given in the "Doublespeak" article seem
mostly inconsistent with the definition you give of the term,
because most of them are not of words used "contrary" to their true
meaning. For example, "secret" does not contradict "classified,"
nor does "wet work" contradict "assassination." Most of your list
is a bunch of bureaucratic euphemisms, nothing more.
Also, the Department of Defense (assuming you mean the one in the
US) was formed by a merger of the pre-existing War Department and
Navy Department (I believe those to be the correct names). I don't
deny that the DOD is there to wage war (and therefore affords
perhaps the one indisputable example of doublespeak in your entire
list), but your history is a bit off.
> Lately, people have been working on those articles. I'm not really
> sure that the accounts given there are very reliable, though, so I'm
> soliciting your help. Wikipedia is a collaborative, public
> encyclopedia, free to anyone to read and redistribute, and free to
> anyone to work on. This might sound crazy, but really it's not,
> because we are constantly checking and editing *each other's* work.
> So, we cater to the highest common denominator in any given area.
An admirable goal. But I wonder to what extent such a document will
be accepted as an authority. If it cited references wherever
possible, it might at least serve as an entree to more autoritative
guides.
Larry Sanger
> I looked at both. [...]
Thanks very much! I have passed along the comments to the people
working on the articles.
> > Lately, people have been working on those articles. I'm not really
> > sure that the accounts given there are very reliable, though, so I'm
> > soliciting your help. Wikipedia is a collaborative, public
> > encyclopedia, free to anyone to read and redistribute, and free to
> > anyone to work on. This might sound crazy, but really it's not,
> > because we are constantly checking and editing *each other's* work.
> > So, we cater to the highest common denominator in any given area.
>
> An admirable goal. But I wonder to what extent such a document will
> be accepted as an authority. If it cited references wherever
> possible, it might at least serve as an entree to more autoritative
> guides.
You're right. Of course, in its present form, it won't be accepted as
an authority by hardly anybody. We need to install an approval
mechanism (that doesn't get in the way of the free development of
content)--perhaps making use of the resources of Nupedia.com, which
does have a very careful approval mechanism.
Thanks for the feedback!
Larry Sanger