If your criteria is some specific quantity instead of one around the ethics of censorship, would you likewise be OK with dictionaries removing a small percentage of words? Under the same pretense, that this removal would surely only impact .1% of those who may consult a dictionary in a meaningful (or even noticeable) way?
If anything, the fact that the censorship is hard to notice makes it all the more pernicious and harmful.
For example, there are a huge number of English-language words that aren’t in every English language dictionary. Compare British English dictionaries to American English dictionaries. Is this censorship? Yes. Am I OK with it? Absolutely.
> Compare British English dictionaries to American English dictionaries. Is this censorship? Yes. Am I OK with it? Absolutely.
Removing a word because it is not in use in the region the dictionary is published is much like you wouldn't necessarily expect a dictionary in Portugal to be identical to a dictionary in Brazil. It is vastly different from removing words because the words are deemed offensive. We're not talking about the NYT removing British spellings like 'fibre', but rather words like 'bitch' or 'slave'.
Yeah, I’m fine w/ the NYT’s chosen deletions. It’s their game and their rules. Wordle’s not a dictionary, it’s a game and a game’s owners get to set the rules. In this case, the acceptable words are a big part of the rules.
If anything, the fact that the censorship is hard to notice makes it all the more pernicious and harmful.