First off, I love words, which is natural considering I am a writer. But more importantly, I respect words. Not for nothing is the pen deemed mightier than the sword. Words have untold power and when used carelessly often have far reaching consequences that you could never have imagined. Now that I have given you some context, perhaps you will understand my dismay at the New Oxford American Dictionary’s choice of Word of the Year: Unfriend.

I don’t deny that it given today’s increasingly online social society it’s a relevant word. And I think that it’s placement in the dictionary has been legitimately earned, but is it really The Word of the Year? I don’t think so.

At least I didn’t until I visited the askoxford.com site and read the reasoning behind the choice of many past winners. The Word of the Year, apparently, is supposed to succinctly summarise a period in time, and what summarises 2009 better than Facebook. I mean, you Facebook someone when you want to send them a message, you friend them and, of course, you unfriend them. Facebook has grown a convenient way to get in touch with long lost friends to become the communication medium of choice between families that are separated by oceans and continents. I know parents (not mine) who are on Facebook more than their kids, which negates arguments that Unfriend has relevance for only a select few in the online industry.

In a statement issued by Oxford’s US dictionary programme, Chrstine Lindberg said that Unfriend has currency and potential longevity. I’m not sure about currency, but it certainly isn’t going anywhere, if anything it will only grow as the numbers of online social networkers increases.

What is quite interesting is that many of the Word of the Year finalists also had a modern, technological mien: hashtag (very Twittery) and intexticated (surely you don’t need that one explained), for instance. But the emphasis on evolving technology is not new. In 2005 the Word of the Year was ‘Podcast’, but if we go all the way back to the beginning of the award (which, incidentally was in 1906), we see that 1911’s word was ‘phone number’ (very indicative of a shift in communication), in 1953 it was ‘teleconference’, ’69 was microchip, ’87 was ‘to email’ and ’97 ’98 and ’99 had a strong internet focus with ‘WAP’, ‘to Google’ and ‘blogger’ respectively.

Yes, Unfriend lacks the sophistication that the award implies, but it could be worse. In 2006 the Word of the Year was ‘bovvered’ and if that isn’t a crime against humanity I don’t know what is.

PS: ReadWriteWeb has a poll on whether Unfriend deserves its award or not. I initially voted no, but after due consideration am going to change my vote to yes. What do you think?

Share or Bookmark this post:
  • LinkedIn
  • Sphinn
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon

Related Posts

  1. Social Media Crime Fighting: Using Twitter and Facebook to beat crime
  2. Wikipedia editing gains trust but not necessarily accuracy
  3. Facebook ‘the movie’, what next?
  4. Facebook friends: how much is too much information?
  5. How important is credibility to your website?

Tags: , , ,