OED editing, antedating peril ephemera, was Re: [ADS-L] The competitive sport of antedating

[Jesse Sheidlower]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 10:41:49PM -0400, Baker, John wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> While I'm in complete agreement with your other comments (as
> well as those of Grant and Jonathon), I don't understand why
> the OED can't go ahead and pull the bogus 1909 quote.  That
> one causes a lot of confusion, and it seems to me that that
> could be done without the major effort that, say, adding the
> 1912 quote would require.

I disagree. First of all, the quote exists in OED2, and is
widely (if incorrectly) referred to in other sources. So if we
take it out, we'd have to add a note saying "A quotation dated
1909 in OED2 was in fact misdated," etc., so that people
looking in OED and not finding this quote would know why it's
not there.

Then we're left with the 1913 quote as the first use. But
wait! That quote, despite appearances, doesn't refer to music.
Do we leave it in (because we're not revising, we're just
pulling the bogus 1909 quote), or do we take it out (because
it's also bogus, if in a different way)? If we take it out,
then the first quote for _jazz_ is 1917 (and that quote
retails an invented etymology, but that's beside the point).
Then we have a sense 1 that's from 1917, but a sense 2 from
1913, so these are out of order. Do we leave them in a wrong
order? Or do we switch them around, perhaps messing up other
cross-references, either within the OED or in other sources?

We do have earlier evidence than 1917 now, but do we put it
in? No, we're not revising. And so forth.

I'm sure there are circumstances where a bogus first quote
could be removed more easily, but this is certainly not one of
them. Pulling this would require significant editorial
consideration even if we were trying to keep it simple.

Jesse Sheidlower
OED

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org