Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objective Dictionary

Rate this topic


DragonMaci

Recommended Posts

I was thinking of doing a software based objective dictionary at some stage, but a friend recommended I do a wiki. This seems like a good idea. Would anyone be interested in contributing to it? Note: I am going to have tight moderation controls, so as to avoid the potential problem of non-objective definitions making it into the dictionary, which might happen if just any uder can add definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I can help you set it up/administer it if you wish. I am also offering to help you add stuff to it. I assume it will be a MediaWiki based Wiki?

Thank you for the offer. I will need to learn some net languages and how to use Visual Web Developer/Visual Studio to make web pages before I begin. As for the wiki, I haven't decided. I need to look at a few first. I don't even recognise that name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, don't we have an OO.net wiki?

I'd like to write for your wiki, but I don't feel I've even scratched the surface of the kind of integration needed to provide, cogent, intelligent and above all, interesting entries for a wiki. It would be a very interesting experiment though, especially when filling in the topic 'Certainty', and seeing the whole debate kick off with Betsy again. :pimp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I am fairly certain it would be very interesting. Or am I? :-P

We do have an OO.NET wiki of course. However I think Kanes idea might be of some merit too.

Though it strikes me whether a wiki as such is needed, it might be better to make a system which is really more simplistic in many ways and more suited to the task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kane (DragonMaci) has already discussed this with me, so I know what he has in mind. However I forgot that its not otherwise so clear to everyone else.

From what Kane has told me it is dictionary providing more objective (precise, useful etc) definitions than in a standard dictionary. I will let Kane give more details however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what Kane has told me it is dictionary providing more objective (precise, useful etc) definitions than in a standard dictionary.
I understand precision, but I wonder what the standard for evaluating "useful" would be -- useful for what? If it's separated from the purpose "clearly express propositions to English speakers", then okay, but once you start mucking around in social and communicative issues, that's a big festering mess that isn't pleasant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, don't we have an OO.net wiki?

I am trying to define words not Objectivism, so many of the words won't appear in the OO.net wiki.

I'd like to write for your wiki, but I don't feel I've even scratched the surface of the kind of integration needed to provide, cogent, intelligent and above all, interesting entries for a wiki. It would be a very interesting experiment though, especially when filling in the topic 'Certainty', and seeing the whole debate kick off with Betsy again. :D

You are welcome to participate. There will be no contributor/user "debates" though. However, the decision of me and my moderators to make edits can be debated if you can rationally explain why we are wrong and you are right.

Though it strikes me whether a wiki as such is needed, it might be better to make a system which is really more simplistic in many ways and more suited to the task.

I think it is a good way to get something out their before I have enough definitions to compile the dictionary. But if you have a better way to do it, then please say what it is.

Okay, gents: what is an objective dictionary?

A lot of modern dictionaries, and even some old ones like my DoubleDay 1979 dictionary, are flawed. They have subjective, inaccurate, non-precise, unclear defitions. A lot of definitions contradict the purpose of language, which is clear communication. Not all words in the dictionaries are like that, but many are. This allpies to book based ones, software based ones like WordWeb, and online ones like AskOxford. I want to make a dictionary that has objective, accurate, precise, clear defitions. My dictionary will be an attempt to have words that fit the purpose of language. I want a dictionary that has definitions for words like slefish and greed that are not properly defined these days.

Will anti-concepts be included, for clarification of what those kinds of words really entail?

Yes, Rory, but with there is clarification that they are an anti-concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well perhaps I should say more precise and easier to apply in the sense that it is easier to apply the definitions to real entities/events etc etc. Useful might not be the best word to have used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

For those that might still be tracking this, and interested in the project: Me and Kane have agreed to see if a more specialized solution works better (not to belittle any of the great Wiki software out there, I'm just not convinced they are as suitable for this). Hopefully we can get some sort of system up for testing before too much longer if me and Kane can agree on a system.

I thought I might help Kane out by asking if anyone has feature requests he could consider? I don't think Kane has asked that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...