This is, despite the title not one of my periodic rants about Wikipedia, but rather an examination of how over-categorization, or perhaps the turning of academic attention to minutiae, can create distinctions where none is necessary.

I started writing this when I stumbled upon the Wikipedia article on Boontling, the argot of the Anderson Valley in California. It would have made no impression on me, except yesterday I stumbled upon a similar argot elevated to a "dialect" and with a list of "words" that seemed almost mundane. Just as in the Boontling list, "Trojan" a brand of dynamite is elevated to the "word' for dynamite. This seems a bit excessive. Do we speak a special dialect because we call a thermographic copy a "Xerox"?

And that is where Wikipedia Syndrome arises. The problem is, there are thousands of regions that have some special argot. The residents of "Bal'mer" (Baltimore to non-Baltimorons) have their own special slang. They "go down'e ocean", they tell "youse kid to get offta payment", the go to the "liberry" to get books, drink "Natty Boh", address everyone as "hon", and "warsh up in the zink with warter". There are tons of regional words, phrases, mispronunciations and so on. And the same is true for every location one can name. However, I see no reason to categorize and memorialize every such dialect. Especially as such languages change constantly, making any "dictionary" instantly obsolete.

But, because Wikipedia thrive on nothing but listing and categorizing (as well as showing up one's fellows by possessing even more obscure and arcane knowledge), every such regional variation is turned into a full fledged "dialect" and the many neologisms are carefully listed and categorized.

However, It seems absurd to me to take every single minor variation and elevate it to a language.

A similar phenomenon comes when we debate what is a "language" and what is a "dialect". I tend to ascribe to the cynical view that a language is "a dialect with an army". Which is why I dismiss the claims of, for example, Friuli in Italy to possess a "language". Friulano is no more different from Italian than Gallician or Catalan is from Spanish, yet those are dialects. Portugese, on the other hand, no more different from Spanish than Gallician, is a language as they have an army. (See how easy my rule makes it to tell a language from a dialect?)

And I feel the same about this endless proliferation of "dialects". Not every slang, or collection of regional phrases and words constitutes a language. When I was a teen we invented the word "snool" to mean wheedling free gifts form others, or as a noun someone who regularly does the same. It even persisted into college, where some friends and I used it as the name for our band ("The Might Snuel" -- note the much more interesting spelling ["like gruel, but with an 'sn'"] -- aka "Andy Warhol and the New Disciples of Mediocrity"). Nor was that our only coinage, we invented words and phrases such as "haunted dentist's office", "orf", "squid"*, "night of the hooligan", "eel boy" and "eel skipper", and probably a few dozen more. Does that mean we had a full fledged dialect worthy of notice? Of course not. But thanks to Wikipedia's attempt to create a "scientific" list of all dialects, every minute regional variation will be elevated to a language all its own.

And that, I suppose, is my complaint. I don't care if hobbyists want to collect endless lists of local dialects. It strikes me as a sterile pursuit, akin to the dabbling of 19th century antiquarians, especially those who seemed to live for nothing but compiling endless catalogs**. But by turning each and every variation into a full fledged dialect, we managed to downplay the importance of real dialects. When every little variation is a "dialect", then the difference between significant dialects, which vary in words and syntax and have a significant number of speakers, and a local argot which calls phones by the name of the first guy to have one installed, is lost. And in losing that distinction, we lose some very significant information.

This reminds me of the similar Wikipedia problem, of calling every minute sect a separate "religion" and every piddling ethnic subgroup a full fledged "race"***. It seems, to avoid making distinctions that might offend some or seem "biased" or "racist" or "discriminatory"****, Wikipedia has given up any claim to making value judgments at all. But without valuation, there is no knowledge. Knowledge is predicated not upon accumulating every fact, but distinguishing important facts from unimportant, and knowing what needs to be learned and what can be ignored. However, if we place Occitian and Boontling on a single level, we loose that distinction and end up wasting the time of linguists on studying the slang of drug slinging corner boys in Baltimore. It is worthless to simply accumulate facts. Knowledge comes from evaluating those facts and deciding which are significant and which are not.

That is something the contributors to, and editors of, Wikipedia fail to understand.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

* OK, "squid" is Annapolitan slang for midshipmen. So it wasn't unique to my circle of friends. Does that mean there is an Annapolis dialect as well?

** Not that such catalogs are valueless. My father in law composed numerous bibliographies in his later years, so I understand cataloging and compiling are useful endeavors, but what many miss is the compositor of the catalog makes value judgments about what to include and what to exclude. Since we do not see this many often mistakenly think he included everything, and Wikipedia has followed that practice, but in reality, the writers of the best catalogs and bibliographies actually did a lot of "behind the scenes" editorial work. And Wikipedia would benefit from a bit of the same.

*** By ignoring the ties between sects and ethnic subgroups, this Wikipedia elevation of minor sects and ethnic affiliations actually makes us ignorant of important information. So, while it may stroke the ego of members of the group, for the rest of us it actually denies us important knowledge.

**** I will probably be shunned by academia for saying so, but knowledge is, at its root, discriminatory. Discriminating between the essential and the inconsequential is the basis of all understanding, so "discrimination" is essential to true knowledge, and impartiality is anathema to real learning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Sorry, I suppose this turned into an anti-Wikipedia rant after all. Honestly, I intended only to describe the problem when I started. But once I was under way, I realized just how damaging this lack of evaluation really is.

POSTSCRIPT II

While I talk about this problem in terms of Wikipedia, Wikipedia may exaggerate the problem due to their methodology, but the same problem exists in modern academia. To appear "fair" and "impartial" and avoid giving offense, a lot of modern academia refuses to distinguish between significant and insignificant groups. In fact, to appear to champion the "outsider", or to one-up a rival with a show of arcane knowledge, many will specialize in a minute group of which no one has ever heard. And while there may be some small benefit to be gained form minute study of tiny groups or regional languages spoken by a handful, I think we still need to be able to distinguish between such petty groups and languages and those that are more widely known. To treat all the same is just to deny reality.

POSTSCRIPT III

I realize NPR and the Pulitzer committee already elevated Boontling to the status of dialect and gave it their approval, but that doesn't change my opinion. NPR thinks Garrison Keillor is amusing, and the Pulitzer committee thought Stalin was just peachy and Walter Duranty an honest reporter, so I will stick with my own judgment on this one.

By the way, as an aside, I still think Newsradio had the best commentayr on NPR:

Lisa: (worried she is getting old and growing less intelligent) When I listen to NPR I get tired and confused.
Dave: I thought that was what was supposed to happen when you listened to NPR

I may have a few words wrong, but it gets the point across, and remains one of my favorite quotes from a funny show.