Web Jargon

[columb]

This link to www.newscientisttech.com has just been posted on /. I thought it might be of interest to this forum as it concerns computing and linguistics. I'm not sure if I'm fascinated, or horrified.

Ceci n'est pas une signature
Columb Healy

 

[Trevoke]

I am both fascinated and horrified.
It could be worse. It could take meanings from

http://www.urbandictionary.com

...

"That time in Seattle... was a nightmare. I came out of it dead broke, without a house, without anything except a girlfriend and a knowledge of UNIX."
"Well, that's something," Avi says. "Normally those two are mutually exclusive."
-- Neal Stephenson, "Cryptonomicon"

 

[Gooser]

To that, I say rawbomb!

 

[Grenage]

That is a horrible, horrible idea!


Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[Scott24x7]

That is so cool...

Best Regards,
Scott

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."

 

[CajunCenturion]

I don't have a problem with this program in theory, but I have a real problem with the implementation.

Wikipedia is not a refereed source neither is it edited. As such, it should be considered a reliable source document.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Golom]

As such, it should be considered a reliable source document

CC - are you missing a not in there?

 

[CajunCenturion]

Yes Golom I am. Thanks.

I feel that Wikipedia should not be considered a reliable source document.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[columb]

I feel that Wikipedia should not be considered a reliable source document.

This raises a huge debate about what should be considered a reliable source document. Tests have shown that Wikipedia has an accuracy rate similar to Britanica, so trusting a 'household name' may not be enough. I also happen to know that, in a certain subject, the Britanica article and the Wikipedia article were written by the same person (my father).

With any subject other than a very technical one any written work will have a subjective bias. For example no newspaper can possibly give the whole truth because the events portrayed will be selected and edited, subconsciously as well as consciously, by the reporter and his editor. To an extent this is also true of any reference book.

So, to come back to the point, despite Wikipedia's many weaknesses, I would suggest that it is a good source of WebSpeak. The contributors may, or may not, be accurate on their subjects, but they are likely to be accurate in their WebSpeak. It's a bit like trusting a French person more than a dictionary to translate French words.

Ceci n'est pas une signature
Columb Healy