Talk:xerox

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Problem with two edits here[edit]

User with IP 13.8.125.10 added some text about the "proper" use of the Xerox trademark. That IP address is in the xerox.com domain. I don't know if the edits should be reverted or modified, but they smell fishy, particularly in a dictionary. --Dfeuer 06:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The edits originating from locust-13-8-125.ext.uswestgw.xerox.com is a bad thing yes. But the content they added does not seem incorrect. Perhaps move those comments to a ===Usage note=== then add several citations for both senses? We need to have a separate entry for Xerox ™ split from xerox noun and verb. So this entry needs some help anyway. Perhaps these questions should be moved to the tea room so they get enough attention. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Xerox is editing Wiktionary is an incredibly bad thing because Xerox is interested in protecting its trademark which, according to present law as I understand it, obligates them to actively campaign against the use of the word in a generic context (see wikipedia:genericized trademark and wikipedia:Xerox#Trademark issues). It doesn't so much matter to the courts whether the campaigns are successful or not, so long as they are active. Although most dictionaries blow them off, Xerox has to keep up the pretense and do what it can. Unless we want Wiktionary to push certain non-democratic points of view, there's an obvious conflict with the wiki concept of free editing. Davilla 01:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm new to these Wiki projects but I don't seen the obvious conflict you mention. Placing the information in a Usage Note seems quite reasonable to me.
If anyone interested can contribute, why not Xerox? However, I would point out that the origin of the apparently offending edits is only the Xerox gateway to the internet. There is, as far as I can tell, no indication of an official Corporate intervention by Xerox. I think it more likely that a Xerox employee was working from his desk and made the edit as a personal contribution. Most Xerox employees are well aware of the trademark issue, which the company addresses with some degree of success at times. In regions where Xerox has a heavy presence, many people who are not Xerox employees do in fact use the words "copy" or "photocopy" in preference to using the word "Xerox" as a verb or common noun. (Disclosure: I am also a Xerox employee, but I learned to say "copy" instead from an friend who worked for IBM, and some 15 years before I got closer to Xerox Corporation than anyone else who presses the green button to make a copy.)
66.67.106.233 03:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The only conflict is if the free editing is abused by the company to push its agenda. I was and still am seriously worried this will happen as a result of the influence of law, specifically that of the U.S., but a call to arms is premature. If it doesn't become an issue I will be quite happy, and if it does become an issue then there are ways of dealing with it. The community here has proven to me that they promote the evaluation and description of language as it is used in the world. Yes, there are arguments, but the question is framed from a linguistic perspective. That's something amazing about the Wiki concept. You would think anyone could do anything, but in fact the collective machine is well focused because every individual is aware of it aims. Davilla 06:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)