[EM] jargon dictionary suggestion

[Dr.Ernie Prabhakar]

Hi James,

Congratulations - you've just reinvented wiki policy. :-)  I presume  
you missed Ken's email due to time lag:

> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki.phtml? 
> title=Electoral_reform_jargon_list ?
>
> If so, that's a "wiki," which is a collectively-maintained web page.  
> Anyone can go in and edit it whenever they like. It'd probably be a  
> really good idea to bring it up to date with all the terms and  
> acronyms that are thrown around here. But anyone who wants to can do  
> it!

I've updated it to better match current Wiki standards (though it could  
still use help).  I'll try to add a few terms myself as time goes on.

-- Ernie P.

On May 30, 2004, at 9:04 PM, James Green-Armytage wrote:

>
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> I do not know how to do a search and thus find the agreed on
>> definition of an acronym.
>>
>> Perhaps someone could accept responsibility for maintaining a  
>> dictionary;
>
> 	However, if people are interested in creating a jargon dictionary for  
> its
> own sake (and I think that it's a good idea), here's how I would  
> suggest
> to go about it:
>
> 1. Anyone can write an e-mail to the EM list, with the subject heading
> "Jargon Dictionary." They can write in a few definitions to begin, but  
> it
> doesn't have to be more than one or two. They should put their initials
> next to the definitions that they wrote.
> 2. People should put the definitions in alphabetical order.
> 3. Someone else copies the entire Jargon Dictionary, adds more  
> definitions
> of their own to it, and reposts it to the list, always with the heading
> "Jargon Dictionary."
> 4. Someone else copies the second version of the Jargon Dictionary in  
> its
> entirety, and then adds more definitions, marked by their own initials.
> They post the new version.
> 5. And so on. People keep updating the dictionary simply by copying the
> last version posted, adding more definitions, and re-posting it.
>
> Note: People should not ever delete or alter any definition that was
> originally posted by anyone other than themself.
> 	However, people can withdraw or alter definitions that they posted
> originally.
> 	
> Note: If you disagree with a definition, then you can post another
> definition for the same term.
> 	Other people can then add their initials to one or the other (or  
> both) in
> approval.
>
> Note: It's possible that if multiple people are working on the  
> dictionary
> at once, they might post separate versions of the dictionary that don't
> include each other's new definitions. If so, it's no big problem...  
> one or
> both of them can just re-add the definitions that they tried to add
> before, copying from the latest version of the dictionary available. In
> general, any time you notice one of your definitions omitted from a new
> version of the dictionary, you can feel free to do a new posting with  
> it
> added.
>
> 	People who maintain web pages can feel free to copy current versions  
> of
> the dictionary to a web page with a permanent address, and then update  
> the
> page every so often as the dictionary changes.
> 	I think that this would be a good project that we could work on  
> together,
> without placing commitment on any one person in particular.
> 	I guess that if anyone puts in any definitions that are just totally
> ridiculous (e.g. "IRV: A psychedelic hippo-grinding method invented by  
> the
> Marquis de Chocula"... ), then there could be some sort of process of
> removing it. I guess that you could copy it to a separate thread of
> "Dictionary Out-takes" for a week or so, and if during that time no one
> can bring up a half-reasonable support for keeping the definition, it
> could get stricken from the Jargon Dictionary itself. Or something like
> that... hopefully it wouldn't be too bad of a problem, but we'll see.
>
> 	Well, what do you think? Anyone can start the ball rolling. Just keep  
> the
> subject heading of "Jargon Dictionary"...
>
> sincerely,
> James
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list  
> info