[sw-l] Guidelines for Dictionary Editors ;-)

[Sandy Fleming]

Dan said:

> And children? You can access many dictionaries online, including American
> Heritage and OED. Unexpurgated. I don't think learning the word for
> "fellatio" is going to scar kids for life. And if parents are using any
> kind of keyword-based net-nanny software, chances are those pages will be
> blocked, if that's what the parents want.
>
> Of course we include "useful" signs. I can guarantee that any lexical
> entry worth using will be included, and those outnumber the sailor talk by
> quite a bit. I think the process of naturally adding signs as we encounter
> them will keep the salty language to a very low proportion. But to
> bowlderize the dictionary? That goes against my principles.

OK, I'm convinced! I'll just go and put some in now...  :)

No, I think your argument is sound, but I don't think the Puddle
dictionaries are actually that "mature" yet. I mean you can read every gloss
for the ASL dictionary in five minutes, it would look a little irresponsible
to see "advanced" words included in such small wordlists where many of the
end-users are going to be teachers who are encouraging small children to
look up the dictionary and copy out signs. What happens when the little tyke
goes home and proudly shows his parents his first steps in writing... and
it's something that means and even looks a bit like a [insert anything that
occurs to your imagination here :]

Your argument is of course completely correct, except that you argue by
comparing the Puddle dictionaries as they presently stand with the American
Heritage Dictionary and OED. That comparison isn't valid and probably won't
be for quite a while yet.

Sandy