I have coined a word. A close friend suggested putting it on wikipedia, but one of the rules of wikipedia is that it does not host original research.
The rule states:
An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is:
* it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
* it introduces original ideas; or
* it defines new terms; or
* it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or
* it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or
* it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source; or
* it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.
If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.
The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia.
Shit and goddamn. Short of publishing my word in a scholarly journal, I think I’m just gonna have to post my definition here.