Talk:practopoiesis

RFV discussion: November 2014–February 2015

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

practopoiesis

I suspect that this is a protologism. A recent editor claims that he coined the word earlier this year. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As you suspect, IMO. This doesn't seem to rise to the level of "hot word", but I wouldn't be surprised if it were attestable in a year or so. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is the definition. "Creation of actions" does not seem to mean anything more than "doing" or "implementing". Unless it has more meaning, I don’t see it being used by anyone else. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've only noticed cases like this of somewhat lame academic efforts to promote a word/concept. There must be similar cases that are not quite as lame.

But scholarly publishing is even worse than Usenet in terms of potential and incentive to engage in activity that, in effect if not in intent, games our attestation criteria. A secure researcher with graduate students or subordinates (in non-academic environment) or a 'school' of followers (former graduate students) can more or less compel the juniors to publish using the word/concept. Our 'independence' criteria are not usually interpreted in such a way as to catch such cases. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Even so, it's a crap definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added citations and a more detailed definition (Danko Nikolic).

I've gone ahead and deleted this, since the entry was created by the inventor of the word (he should use WT:LOP), and his citations are inadequate, including a Weblog; they must meet WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Striking. Equinox ◑ 23:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Later

I have now updated the citations with five references (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:practopoiesis), none of which refers to a Weblog. All but one reference are to a peer-reviewed publication. Perhaps now the entry can pass RfV. At least, I hope so.(Dankonikolic (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC))

Um, you realise one of them is German. You're trying to support an English word here. Equinox ◑ 09:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)