"Etymological misinformation is a fact of life"

[Bapopik at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 3/11/2003 8:19:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, fred.shapiro at YALE.EDU writes:

> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Fred Shapiro wrote:
>
> > -- I recognize that the prevalence of etymological information is a fact
> > of life and I don't post a continual stream of messages bewailing every
> > repetition of untruth in the media.  We live in a world of inaccuracy,
>
> I meant to say "the prevalence of etymological
> misinformation."

   I'm violated every single day, and I'm supposed to accept it as a fact of life?  Don't mention it?  Maybe sit back and enjoy it?  That's the "corrected" message?
   I love Fred Shapiro, but I disagree.
   Look, I'm looking at today's NEW YORK TIMES Dining In/Dining Out section, and on page two there are two letters and one correction, and not one of them corrects errors I told them about.  Didn't they believe me?  Two Sundays ago, my "Tin Pan Alley" work was used without credit.  Last Sunday, my "Windy City" work was ignored.  It's now twelve years later, and there's still no "Big Apple" story.  If I'm in a book for solving "the Big Apple," the TIMES will mention the midwestern marble lady.
   I refuse to accept these as "facts of life."
   Here are some Google numbers to look at:

650 "computer bug" and "hopper" and "moth"
58  "computer bug" and "hopper" and "moth" and "Shapiro"

   Not good, but my numbers are much worse.  We're talking "fingers and toes" counts here:

3,490 "Big Apple" and "nickname"
18    "Big Apple" and "nickname" and "Popik"

1,940 "Windy City" and "nickname"
14    "Windy City" and "nickname" and "Popik"

346   "hot dog" and "Dorgan"
6     "hot dog" and "Dorgan" and "Popik"

   What can be done?
   People have suggested writing a book.  But the CHICAGO TRIBUNE isn't ignoring me because my work is in COMMENTS ON ETYMOLOGY and not PADS or a book.  I've been sending the CHICAGO TRIBUNE its own historic articles to them; they know what it is.
   Here are other options:
   1.  NOTHING.  That's not an acceptable option for me, and I've got to disagree with Fred.
   2.  MAJOR EMBARRASSMENT TO THE MEDIA WHO GET IT WRONG, FROM THE MEDIA WHO GET IT RIGHT.  The media believes the media.  Say, 60 MINUTES or THE NEW YORKER were to interview THE NEW YORK TIMES and ask them why they've not done a story on "the Big Apple" in the fifteen years since John J. Fitz Gerald was discovered.  Why Charles Gillett's obituary credited Damon Runyon.  Or if the NEW YORK SUN were to do a story about the CHICAGO TRIBUNE.  But the NEW YORK SUN doesn't listen to me, either.
   3.  INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT.  Now we're getting warmer.  Many groups have advocate/protectionist organizations.  Think ACT-UP.  Think Jewish Defense League.  I'm a member of the ADS.  I'm also a member of the Dictionary Society of America.  I'm also a member of the National Writers Union.  I'm also a contributor to the OED.  Say one or all of the above hired a lawyer and took action on behalf of its members/contributors.  There would probably be action.  But there's been no action.  Maybe the DSNA should think about protecting its members work (over the internet and the media) at its annual meeting.

   We all make errors.  We all repeat, unknowingly, errors of others.  That's a fact of life, and the internet makes it easier and faster.
   But if a person tells us it's an error, and we know that he or she is right, and we refuse to acknowledge it--that's horrible.  And that's not a fact of life.
   Perhaps this is not as important as (mis)information about Iraq or North Korea.  But this is all about telling the truth, and it's about more than my work or Fred's.