I've seen some daft proposed etymologies in my time but this one takes the biscuit.

I wrote a limerick for the OEDILF on the phrase "daft as a brush" and Chris, in passing, asked me if British brushes are notoriously daft.

I checked and discovered, to little surprise, that the origin isn't known and the phrase in this form doesn't appear till the 1950s though earlier versions "daft as a besom" or "fond as a buzzom" are recorded back to 1846.

The ridiculous etymolgy that I ran across was this

quote:

It has it's origin with Victorian chimney sweeps. It seems that children were first used as sweeps since the skilled child was small and could easily work his way vertically through the confined space, clearing blockages and removing the build up of soot by hand. While in training the apprentice was sometimes dropped head first down the chimney which caused severe cerebral damage. Hence the phrase.

You'll be daft as a brush if you swallow that one.

From where is it, Bob? I think we should post a list of sites that we trust, or not so much. This will be with the "not so much" sites!

I think it was just something someone had posted on Wiki Answers in response to the same question.

Right. Wiki Answers is number on on the list for trusting 'not so much' then. I'd also add the Urban Dictionary, although people generally post just glosses, not etymologies, there.

I am reminded of Cliff Clavin, the character in the old TV series, Cheers," who frequently came up with nutty etymologies. That's why I liked the show!

Guides at tourist attractions also have a bad name for passing on urban legends, including ones on language. Which reminds me, snopes.com has a language section. One for the 'good guys'?

Nice site, arnie.

Yes, and in another thread I had posted from Wiki Answers. I did not realize it was so unreliable, especially since many people here really like Wikipedia. They must not be related then, right?

I do know that Yahoo! Answers is terrible. Almost any answer I've found there has been wrong, wrong, wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Nice site, arnie.

Yes, and in another thread I had posted from Wiki Answers. I did not realize it was so unreliable, especially since many people here really like Wikipedia. They must not be related then, right?

They're not. "wiki" is a generic term.

Of course Snopes isn't new to us. Who among us could ever forget the infamous "Mr Ed was a zebra" incident?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

wiki

Wiki refers to a kind of web application (software that runs remotely but displays in your web browser). The first wiki (called WikiWikiWeb) was implemented by Ward Cunningham and was about developer-based discussion of topics like design patterns, etc. It was named wiki because that is the Hawaiian word for quick, and originally its major functionality was to allow the quick authoring of web pages. Lots of other (mainly developer) wiki sites sprang up soon thereafter. Wikipedia was one. Originally Wikipedia was supposed to be an online encyclopedia (based on content from the public domain content of Encyclopedia Britannica 10th edition) that could be edited by anybody with web access. It's still pretty much that. Wikipedia is owned by WikiMedia Corp. WikiAnswers is owned by Answers.com. It started out as a FAQ farm, i.e., a wiki that displayed content authored elsewhere (mainly FAQs, frequently answered questions).

About Wikipedia's trustworthiness: at this time it's no less trustworthy than an brick and mortar encyclopedia. The few times I have come across material that is wrong, it was due to vandalism (usually easy to spot and which happens to print encyclopedias, too) or a different interpretation of something controversial. Right next to the edit button on an Wiki page, there is also a talk page, that usually gives the reader a background on any arguments about interpretation, etc. Vandalism is easily reversed by looking at the edit history (a sort of audit trail on each page) and seeing what words were affected.

Just become somebody has a domain and is running wiki software (by now there are tens of different implementations online) does not grant or deny them trustworthiness. Wikipedia is like any other media product, the trustworthiness is part of their history. Also, Wikipedia is not a refereed journal, but then neither is the Encyclopedia Britannica or the OED. The OED has something called an editorial policy (and so does Wikipedia) which helps a reader to understand why words might be excluded or included over time.

"Daffymologies" might be fun, along the lines of the bluffing game

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:
"Daffymologies" might be fun, along the lines of the bluffing game

I did suggest that game - see here for 'shampoo'. Bob tried with another couple of words, 'snob' and 'avocado', but it hasn't really caught on.

quote:

They're not. "wiki" is a generic term.

I did know that. I host two work Wikis. I just mistakenly thought Wiki Answers might have been a part of Wikipedia. Sorry about that.

I very much appreciated your review of Wikis, z, though I do have a couple of minor quibbles. When you say that the OED or Encyclopedia Britannica aren't refereed (peer reviewed), I am not sure what you mean. Perhaps they aren't peer reviewed in the same way an article might be, for example, in the New England Journal of Medicine, but I can tell you, firsthand, that the OED is peer reviewed. Indeed, Wordcrafter used to be one of their reviewers. In a similar vein, I am pretty sure the Encylopedia Britannica has external expert reviewers as well because whenever I write chapters for books, they are heavily peer reviewed. I'd not expect that to be different for a well-respected encyclopedia. The difference, however, is that the NEJM article could be rejected by the peer reviewers, while generally books and encyclopedia work is already accepted and the reviewers verify the information or suggest other topics, citations, resources, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
I did suggest that game - see here for 'shampoo'. Bob tried with another couple of words, 'snob' and 'avocado', but it hasn't really caught on.

Soooo, let's have another one! I liked it.

When you say that the OED or Encyclopedia Britannica aren't refereed (peer reviewed), I am not sure what you mean.

All I meant was that they are not peer-reviewed and that they are still looked upon with great respect as reference works. Wikipedia is peer reviewed in the same way that you suggest the OED is. I have only written one article (on a movie from the forties) and within a couple of hours I got feedback from an editor, asking for citations (in print) interestingly enough. I also cited IMDB (which I have been using since before the web when it was lists of actors' data in flat files that you had to ftp to grep through).

I just find it interesting that so many people are critical of Wikipedia because it is user-managed. I'm sure the Soviet Encyclopedia was "peer"-reviewed also, and had editors making sure that only the "facts" were reported. Those "facts" changed a lot over the years. One of the editorial policies was that if you were tasked with rewriting an article, it had to be the same length so it could be tipped into existing editions of the Encyclopedia, because republishing was prohibitively expensive.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff:

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
I did suggest that game - see here for 'shampoo'. Bob tried with another couple of words, 'snob' and 'avocado', but it hasn't really caught on.

Soooo, let's have another one! I liked it.

Give us a word then. I'll play.

quote:

All I meant was that they are not peer-reviewed and that they are still looked upon with great respect as reference works. Wikipedia is peer reviewed in the same way that you suggest the OED is.

So, you agree then that the OED and the Encyclopedia Britannica are peer reviewed? The first sentence seems to say you don't, while the second seems to acknowledge they are. Anyway, from my understanding (and firsthand experience), they are.

If that goes on with Wikipedia, too, that's great. I did not realize it was. I'll never forget the article I ran into once about baccalaureate nursing degrees. It was way off, though I did go in and edit it to correct it.

Of course, you always have to read critically, whether the article is peer reviewed or not. I peer review articles for a few journals, and often the peer reviewers are not in agreement. So nothing is perfect.

I'll play the etymology game!

So, you agree then that the OED and the Encyclopedia Britannica are peer reviewed? The first sentence seems to say you don't, while the second seems to acknowledge they are. Anyway, from my understanding (and firsthand experience), they are.

They're not what I would call peer-reviewed, but I was saying if you can call them peer-reviewed then Wikipedia fits your definition. We can just agree to disagree.

If that goes on with Wikipedia, too, that's great. I did not realize it was. I'll never forget the article I ran into once about baccalaureate nursing degrees. It was way off, though I did go in and edit it to correct it.

Sure, Wikipedia has some badly written articles, and may contain some incorrect bits, but then it is correctable immediately. And again, it's an encyclopedia. I once found an error in the newish Encyclopedia Britannica and I started to tell a salesman who came to our front door about it. He couldn't get away from this crazy person fast enough.

Of course, you always have to read critically, whether the article is peer reviewed or not. I peer review articles for a few journals, and often the peer reviewers are not in agreement. So nothing is perfect.

Well, I agree with you there.

I suppose my off-hand comment about Wikipedia was to say, it's a good place to start, it's convenient, and you can correct errors and grammar, but it will not replace research and peer-reviewed journals. In fact, articles in Wikipedia (or the English version at least) have an editorial policy that no original research that has not been published may be cited or used.

quote:

They're not what I would call peer-reviewed, but I was saying if you can call them peer-reviewed then Wikipedia fits your definition. We can just agree to disagree.

I don't think we are agreeing to disagree. I think we are on the same page here. However, what is your understanding of a peer reviewer then? I am just curious. Wordcrafter was reviewing the OED specifically for legal entries. He is an expert on legal issues. Isn't that similar to the NEJM or the AJN choosing experts for peer reviewing? Whenever I've written book chapters, my reviewers are always experts in the area. It's only the Encyclopedia Britannica that I am not sure about, and I can easily find that out. Their offices are in the building where I work.

Bob, arnie, and Kalleh know about the etymology game going right now, but what about the rest of you? Drop in, send a PM, and let's get this game going!

Oh, recommended read: Etymologicon by Mark "The Inky Fool" Forsyth. Kinda stream of consciousness etymology.