[Leguaris]

It seems that, more often than not, the defining difference between two sides in any given thread on these forums is how they define the key terms in the topic. For that matter we generally turn to dictionaries. There is, however, one slight problem: every dictionary has different definitions for the same word. Although the differences in definitions vary slightly, it can have a huge impact on the outcome of a debate. For example, the primary definitions of the word communism (noun), from Merriam-Webster Online and Dictionary.com:

Merriam-Webster Online said:

1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

Dictionary.com said:

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

So, going by one definition, communism is a stateless society, while in the other communism involves the existence of the state. Considering that most supporters of true communism support a stateless society, while detractors from communism use the totalitarian and arguably communist states as evidence, that one little difference makes all the difference.

Due to these differences, both sides inevitably point to their favorable definitions, and both sides inevitably start arguing different questions altogether.

Therefore, for the sake of sanity (as much as anything else), I posit the question: which online dictionary (since those are readily accessible) should take precedence over the others?

This may eventually include a vote over the various dictionaries available, but for now I want to insure that the debate encompasses all online dictionaries, not just Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com. If there are any other (free) online dictionaries out there, please point them out.

I propose, since Merriam-Webster is also a hardcover dictionary, and since Merriam-Webster has existed for a longer period of time than Dictionary.com, that Merriam-Webster Online should take precedence over Dictionary.com for the purposes of this forum.

[Kenadian_2006]

Dictionary.com wins out for me.

[Mudkip]

This is an interesting thread. It seems that Wikipedia has the most accurate definition most of the time, as I beleive that the majority can never go wrong.

[thedestro]

Kenadian_2006, on Dec 23 2007, 01:05 PM, said:

Dictionary.com wins out for me.

Thank-you. It's Dictionary.com, you know it's the best when it has the simplest name.

Only draw-back I'd have to say is those annoying pop-ups.

[Toichus Maximus]

I think dictionary.com wins because its definitions are generally a conglomeration of various dictionary definitions. The average is always most accurate.

[Mudkip]

Webbster wins because it's not conservative propoganda.

[SpacingOutMan]

Dictionary.com... or perhaps the real dictionary? I have found that Dictionary.com shares the most relevant definitions, just like a real dictionary! Oh snap! How did that happen?!

[Mihaly von Zsilinsky]

Oxford English is the standard. Go by that.

[Lamuella]

I think the habit of people trying to prove a point by going to a dictionary definition is incredibly tiresome. More tiresome is when people claim that because their favorite definition is first it means it's the most important. At least find an encyclopedia definition instead. Or, you know, actually learn something about the subject.

[Lord GVChamp]

Mudkip, on Dec 23 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

This is an interesting thread. It seems that Wikipedia has the most accurate definition most of the time, as I beleive that the majority can never go wrong.

Well, you're gonna have a hell of a fun time in the Boiler Room, I can assure you that :lol:

[SpacingOutMan]

The Eternal Chairman, on Dec 23 2007, 06:15 PM, said:

Oxford English is the standard. Go by that.

Is there an online dictionary that goes by Oxford English?

[Lamuella]

SpacingOutMan, on Dec 23 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

Is there an online dictionary that goes by Oxford English?

http://www.askoxford.com

[Mudkip]

nvm

This post has been edited by Mudkip: 23 December 2007 - 12:32 PM

[SpacingOutMan]

Lamuella, on Dec 23 2007, 06:29 PM, said:

http://www.askoxford.com

Thanks Lameulla.

www.askoxford.com said:

communism

• noun 1 a political and social system whereby all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. 2 a system of this kind derived from Marxism, practised in China and formerly in the Soviet Union

[Toichus Maximus]

Lamuella, on Dec 23 2007, 01:19 PM, said:

I think the habit of people trying to prove a point by going to a dictionary definition is incredibly tiresome. More tiresome is when people claim that because their favorite definition is first it means it's the most important. At least find an encyclopedia definition instead. Or, you know, actually learn something about the subject.

/me notes a reference to himself.

The most commonly understood usage of the word is generally listed first. It doesn't mean the other definitions mean nothing, it just means that the most common, general understanding of the word is the first meaning. And just because someone refers you to a dictionary doesn't mean they know nothing, it means they are trying to offer you some clarity as to their stance. A dictionary reference is a courtesy to someone who is confused as to what the author is trying to say.

[Smallfrog]

Chambers online is pretty good.

Its also the scrabble dictionary (by official scrabble rules)

[Leguaris]

Lamuella, on Dec 23 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

http://www.askoxford.com

And OED wins the day, yet again.

Because OED is the leading dictionary by all counts, I change my claim to having AskOxford.com reigning supreme. However, since Merriam-Webster already has an established reputation as a dictionary, thanks to it's hardback version, it still is a better source than Dictionary.com.

To those who claim Dictionary.com is better because it is a compilation: a compilation of what other sources, and by whom? Dictionary.com doesn't seem to have any real reputation other than its URL. If I took over Communism.com, claimed the site was a compilation of other communist sites, and called communism a happy society of panda bears, would that make communism a happy society of panda bears?

[Toichus Maximus]

Leguaris, on Dec 23 2007, 01:46 PM, said:

And OED wins the day, yet again.

Because OED is the leading dictionary by all counts, I change my claim to having AskOxford.com reigning supreme. However, since Merriam-Webster already has an established reputation as a dictionary, thanks to it's hardback version, it still is a better source than Dictionary.com.

To those who claim Dictionary.com is better because it is a compilation: a compilation of what other sources, and by whom? Dictionary.com doesn't seem to have any real reputation other than its URL. If I took over Communism.com, claimed the site was a compilation of other communist sites, and called communism a happy society of panda bears, would that make communism a happy society of panda bears?

A claim is different than fact, now, isn't it? This is why dictionary.com is the best:

Quote

the resources that appear on Dictionary.com are:

* Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
* Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7) Copyright © 2007 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
* The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
* The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
* The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
* American Heritage® Science Dictionary, Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
* American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
* American Heritage® Abbreviations Dictionary, Third Edition. Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
* Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
* Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
* WordNet ® 3.0, © 2006 Princeton University
* Investopedia.com. Copyright © 1999-2005 - All rights reserved. Owned and Operated by Investopedia Inc.
* Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment Terms for Today's Investor by David L. Scott. Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
* Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
* Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
* Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
* The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2007 Denis Howe
* Jargon File 4.2.0
* Acronym Finder, © 1988-2007 Mountain Data Systems
* U.S. Gazetteer, U.S. Census Bureau
* On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB

http://dictionary.re...help/about.html

[Lamuella]

Toichus Maximus, on Dec 23 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

/me notes a reference to himself.

do you? where?

Quote

The most commonly understood usage of the word is generally listed first. It doesn't mean the other definitions mean nothing, it just means that the most common, general understanding of the word is the first meaning. And just because someone refers you to a dictionary doesn't mean they know nothing, it means they are trying to offer you some clarity as to their stance. A dictionary reference is a courtesy to someone who is confused as to what the author is trying to say.

I never claimed that someone referring to a dictionary knows nothing. What I am saying, which was fairly clear from my post, is that the dictionary's use is for quick definitions, not solid evidence. Dictionaries know little of context, for example. If someone (and to stop your spider-sense tingling this is a made up example) were to try and say that, say, Intelligent Design was a theory just like evolution, and used the dictionary definition of "theory" to back the point up, then they might think they have furthered their point, but they would actually be causing a misleading definition of "theory" in a scientific context.

[Toichus Maximus]

Lamuella, on Dec 23 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

do you? where?

I had just done what you said annoyed you in the other thread we were debating in, so I logically assumed you were referring to me.

Quote

I never claimed that someone referring to a dictionary knows nothing. What I am saying, which was fairly clear from my post, is that the dictionary's use is for quick definitions, not solid evidence. Dictionaries know little of context, for example. If someone (and to stop your spider-sense tingling this is a made up example) were to try and say that, say, Intelligent Design was a theory just like evolution, and used the dictionary definition of "theory" to back the point up, then they might think they have furthered their point, but they would actually be causing a misleading definition of "theory" in a scientific context.

This is true. Contextual definitions are always important.