Talk:Woketopia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Kiwima in topic RFV discussion: September–December 2020
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
No durably-archived citations. To qualify as a hot word this would have to have reached wide use. The quotations provided demonstrate the exact opposite. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- This should be at RFV, not RFD. It is clearly a word people use with meaning. The question is whether it is used enough. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- If the only citations are Breitbart (which is not durable, and never will be) and a smattering of similar online fringe sources, it belongs at RfD. I'd argue it should be speedied. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are five uses from people or sites notable enough to make Wikipedia. That doesn't make them durable, but they aren't "fringe" unless you live in a filter bubble. Fox News has been one of the major video news sources for about two decades. Congressman Matt Gaetz' repeated use of the word is widely quoted there and elsewhere. Apparently he said it during the recent RNC (mentioned[1] on CNN) and I would expect video of that to be readily available. A Meet the Press podcast episode is another use. Freely available podcasts should be as durable as commercially available digital music, which is citable, but there is no specific rule on the subject. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- "In a filter bubble" is a description more aptly applied to anyone who views Breitbart as a non-fringe outlet. In any case, that makes 2/5 that pass CFI (Meet the Press, the Matt Gaetz quote). This shouldn't have been added as a hot word. There aren't a year's worth of CFI-compliant cites, and in order to qualify as a hot word, it would need to be in wide – not niche – use. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- At global Alexa rank 230 Breitbart News is far more popular and influential than the vast majority of news or opinion sites. I haven't hesitated to quote from the liberal Mother Jones, which at rank 12,651 is far more obscure, and nobody has ever challenged me on that. I have seen no policy on "hot" words other than that they are exempt from the requirement that the durable citations span a full year; I welcome other editors' thoughts on what the policy should be. One could browse https://twitter.com/hashtag/woketopia to see that Woketopia is in use. Example: Somebody tweeted about Matt Gaetz "Awe, Matty wants to build his own #Woketopia", which I count as a non-durable use of Woketopia. It looks like it's more widely used than hot word sturddlefish (appearing briefly in a burst of news stories) or hot word wokefish (which people are trying to make a thing without much traction). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- "In a filter bubble" is a description more aptly applied to anyone who views Breitbart as a non-fringe outlet. In any case, that makes 2/5 that pass CFI (Meet the Press, the Matt Gaetz quote). This shouldn't have been added as a hot word. There aren't a year's worth of CFI-compliant cites, and in order to qualify as a hot word, it would need to be in wide – not niche – use. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- There are five uses from people or sites notable enough to make Wikipedia. That doesn't make them durable, but they aren't "fringe" unless you live in a filter bubble. Fox News has been one of the major video news sources for about two decades. Congressman Matt Gaetz' repeated use of the word is widely quoted there and elsewhere. Apparently he said it during the recent RNC (mentioned[1] on CNN) and I would expect video of that to be readily available. A Meet the Press podcast episode is another use. Freely available podcasts should be as durable as commercially available digital music, which is citable, but there is no specific rule on the subject. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- If the only citations are Breitbart (which is not durable, and never will be) and a smattering of similar online fringe sources, it belongs at RfD. I'd argue it should be speedied. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- I found one lowercase cite:
- 2020 June, review of Ezra Furman's "Sex Education", in Q (UK magazine), page 99:
- Could there be a more perfect person to soundtrack the funny, sad, silly, serious woketopia that is Netflix's Sex Education?
- 2020 June, review of Ezra Furman's "Sex Education", in Q (UK magazine), page 99:
- and that's it; nothing on Google Books or Scholar, nor in other (university-hosted) academic papers or journals or print newspapers AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Good find. But heads-up that doesn't appear to be a legitimate upload. People sometimes upload unauthorized copies of magazines to Issuu, and while I'll use them for finding cites, I avoid linking to them for obvious reasons. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- By the way, it's not too big of a deal, but I try to keep the fora separate, seeing as this is a question of existence, rather than of dictionary-worthiness. (Obviously, there's a subjective RFD-appropriate side to it as well, in that even if it just barely passes, that likely means that it doesn't deserve hot word status, but that's still a matter of assessing how widely it's used and making a prediction.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
RFV-passed (as a hotword) Kiwima (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)