PDA

View Full Version : [Dixonary] [OT] Blue moons & millionths of meters


Dodi Schultz
June 2nd, 2007, 01:30 PM
>> ...we can see that a U.S. Survey Inch would be 100/3937 =
>> 0.0254000508001016 meters, which is different than 0.9144/36 =
>> 0.0254 meters precisely, the new measure.

Geez, Dan. Picky, picky.

>> So, believe it or not, the Wikipedia is correct in this particular
>> case.

Sheer dumb luck. It still isn't a legit source for journalists. Anyway, I
still say Tony's right and it's 25.4 mm or however you want to phrase it.

>> And the AHD defines a "blue moon" as a second full moon in a month,
>> and no doubt it is authoritative, too. (Just keeping on subject!)

Of course; it agrees with the Am Mus of Nat Hist, MY source! ;-)

--Dodi

Daniel B. Widdis
June 2nd, 2007, 03:54 PM
DS> Picky, picky.

Just confirming the original assertion (that there are two different
"inches" in use in the US, one of them by surveyors) with an authoritative
reference.

DS> Sheer dumb luck [that Wikipedia is correct].

On the contrary, much more than luck. The Wikipedia is an open source
encyclopedia. It allows for anyone to edit and change its content. I have
personally done so on a few items. This allows for immediate correction of
errors, and up-to-date content on many factual, historical and reference
articles. It also provides a mechanism for footnoting the source of its
articles. So even if the article itself may not be a suitable reference, it
contains a footnote for ground truth. It's as reliable as any student's
term paper on inches might be -- perhaps more so, as it's a group project.

DS> It still isn't a legit source for journalists.

Are we journalists here? I'm not.

Personally, I think the Wikipedia is one of the best things to happen to the
web, isolated cases of abuse aside. I wouldn't use it in a footnote, but
it's where I start my research and it usually points me to the right "legit
source."

DS> I still say Tony's right and it's 25.4 mm

That's the "international inch" as I quoted, which has been the standard
since 1959, but is not the same as the pre-1959 measure which is still used
by surveyors, the "U.S. Survey Inch" which is slightly bigger than 25.4 mm.

--
Dan

JohnnyB
June 2nd, 2007, 04:08 PM
Dan

Interesting that two people out of the "sciences" stable realise the worth of Wiki. As a plantsman I start there because there is no
other place where the same range of species can be accessed so easily Often I do not need to go any further for I have answered my
question, but if I do (and I will admit - if I am writing) then I will go from there to more authoritative (frequently more opaque)
sources. For example it is easier to navigate Wikipedia through a range of species in a genus than it is to use the USDA site - and
sometere there on official sites the data is out of date. I rarely find that to be so on Wiki
However, I can thoroughly understand not trusting an inch about any living politician or religious leader - but then I do not know
of any reputable source for such information..

JohnnyB



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> [mailto:Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Daniel B. Widdis
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:55 PM
> To: Dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
> Subject: [Dixonary] Re: [OT] Blue moons & millionths of meters
>
>
> DS> Picky, picky.
>
> Just confirming the original assertion (that there are two
> different "inches" in use in the US, one of them by
> surveyors) with an authoritative reference.
>
> DS> Sheer dumb luck [that Wikipedia is correct].
>
> On the contrary, much more than luck. The Wikipedia is an open source
> encyclopedia. It allows for anyone to edit and change its
> content. I have
> personally done so on a few items. This allows for immediate
> correction of errors, and up-to-date content on many factual,
> historical and reference articles. It also provides a
> mechanism for footnoting the source of its articles. So even
> if the article itself may not be a suitable reference, it
> contains a footnote for ground truth. It's as reliable as
> any student's term paper on inches might be -- perhaps more
> so, as it's a group project.
>
> DS> It still isn't a legit source for journalists.
>
> Are we journalists here? I'm not.
>
> Personally, I think the Wikipedia is one of the best things
> to happen to the web, isolated cases of abuse aside. I
> wouldn't use it in a footnote, but it's where I start my
> research and it usually points me to the right "legit source."
>
> DS> I still say Tony's right and it's 25.4 mm
>
> That's the "international inch" as I quoted, which has been
> the standard since 1959, but is not the same as the pre-1959
> measure which is still used by surveyors, the "U.S. Survey
> Inch" which is slightly bigger than 25.4 mm.
>
> --
> Dan
>

Dodi Schultz
June 2nd, 2007, 06:52 PM
Yes, Dan, you've proved your point.

I DID end my last with ";-)," didn't I?

I'm sure you're an expert in your field, and that if you've done editing of
Wiki, you've done it correctly. The reason reputable periodicals won't
accept Wiki as the authority on anything (and rightly so, IMO) is that it's
anonymous; anyone's "edits" can stand until some other individual who
believes (maybe rightly, maybe not) that he or she knows better edits the
edits; there is no way of checking out the credentials, if any, of those
who contribute, and no identifiable source to credit or question about
possible errors. In short, no way to verify accuracy.

So it's an okay source for general information, but not for citation in
published or scholarly materials.

--Dodi

Daniel B. Widdis
June 2nd, 2007, 08:00 PM
DS> it's an okay source for general information, but not for citation

I think we're all in agreement on that point. As well as the silliness of
naming moons, defining planets, and the fact that neither dord nor zzxjoanw
are actual words.

--
Dan

Dave Cunningham
June 2nd, 2007, 08:58 PM
When in doubt, look at the "history" tab to see what revisions have
been made. Anything conroversial is likely to have scads of recent
edits -- good solid articles rarely get any edits at all.

On Jun 2, 7:52 pm, Dodi Schultz <SCHU... (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
> Yes, Dan, you've proved your point.
>
> I DID end my last with ";-)," didn't I?
>
> I'm sure you're an expert in your field, and that if you've done editing of
> Wiki, you've done it correctly. The reason reputable periodicals won't
> accept Wiki as the authority on anything (and rightly so, IMO) is that it's
> anonymous; anyone's "edits" can stand until some other individual who
> believes (maybe rightly, maybe not) that he or she knows better edits the
> edits; there is no way of checking out the credentials, if any, of those
> who contribute, and no identifiable source to credit or question about
> possible errors. In short, no way to verify accuracy.
>

Dodi Schultz
June 2nd, 2007, 11:11 PM
Dord isn't an actual word?

Daniel B. Widdis
June 2nd, 2007, 11:24 PM
DS> Dord isn't an actual word?

It's as real as esquivalience.

--
Dan

Dodi Schultz
June 3rd, 2007, 12:13 PM
DS> Dord isn't an actual word?

DW> It's as real as esquivalience.

REALER! "Dord" is in my 1934 Merriam-Webster. "Esquivalience" isn't.

--Dodi

dixonary@siam.co.uk
June 3rd, 2007, 12:15 PM
> So it's an okay source for general information, but not
> for citation in
> published or scholarly materials.
>
That's certainly the view we take when marking academic
work.

Best wishes,

Tim B

Daniel B. Widdis
June 3rd, 2007, 02:42 PM
DS> "Dord" is in my 1934 Merriam-Webster. "Esquivalience" isn't.

Esquivalience is in my 2001 New Oxford American Dictionary. "Dord" isn't.

Dord is so last century... ;)

--
Dan

Dodi Schultz
June 3rd, 2007, 04:20 PM
DS> "Dord" is in my 1934 Merriam-Webster. "Esquivalience" isn't.

DW> Esquivalience is in my 2001 New Oxford American Dictionary. "Dord"
DW> isn't.
DW>
DW> Dord is so last century... ;)

LOL!

D'you suppose that "esquivalience" got into the 2001 New Oxford American
the same way "dord" got into the 1934 Merriam-Webster?

--Dodi

Daniel B. Widdis
June 3rd, 2007, 06:55 PM
DS> D'you suppose that "esquivalience" got into the 2001 [NOAD]
DS> the same way "dord" got into the 1934 Merriam-Webster?

Nope. The inclusion of esquivalience and its made-up definition were quite
intentional, unlike the accidental dord.

See http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829ta_talk_alford

--
Dan

Dodi Schultz
June 3rd, 2007, 10:02 PM
DS> D'you suppose that "esquivalience" got into the 2001 [NOAD] DS> the
same way "dord" got into the 1934 Merriam-Webster?

DW> Nope. The inclusion of esquivalience and its made-up definition DW>
were quite intentional, unlike the accidental dord.

DW> See http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829ta_talk_alford

That makes me suspect it was one of those copyright traps. But I'll go take
a look.

--Dodi

Daniel B. Widdis
June 4th, 2007, 12:33 AM
DS> That makes me suspect it was one of those copyright traps

Bingo.

So, would such a fake word, in a reputable dictionary, be fair game for a
dealer? I've spoiled esquivalience but there are others.

--
Dan

Dodi Schultz
June 4th, 2007, 10:22 AM
DW> See http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829ta_talk_alford

Ah. Just as I suspected. ;-)

--Dodi

Dodi Schultz
June 4th, 2007, 10:22 AM
>> So, would such a fake word, in a reputable dictionary, be fair game
>> for a dealer? I've spoiled esquivalience but there are others.

Funny, Dan, but that very thought occurred to me.

Well, actually a succession of thoughts: (1) You find some unfamiliar word
in dictionary.com--or another online-only source--and think, "Ah! Good
one!" (2) Maybe you should double-check to see that it's in at least one
legit, real-world tome. (3) Ah, the Oxford American (or some other; I guess
they all use these ploys) has it, so it's okay.

But what if it IS esquivalience, or something similar? How ya gonna know?

I say not to worry. You could end up doing the amount of research required
for the average Ph.D. thesis.

BTW: I DO think it would be nice if dealers gave their sources, whether on-
or offline. (Some do; some don't.)

--Dodi