Talk:List of buzzwords/Archives/2019

ambiguity

since buzzwords originate from use with a valid meaning, it is not clear from just listing a word how it is used as a buzzword instead of something with actual meaning. perhaps the definition of buzzword could be linked to the context the given word is used in: if it can be percepted as actually conveying a meaning, it is not buzzword use; while if it perceptibly to increase ambiguity in the meaning of a text then it is buzzword use. linking/citing a source to the buzzwords could help in exemplifying this, thugh i suppose most online would be broken links due to removal by the publishers either due to the buzzword and the text containing it being considered not relevant anymore or because of shame when aware of being listed in WP as buzzwords. it seems that individual buzzwords dont hold on for long, a decade at most, and are being cycled out for new buzzwords. the origin of this gloes back to the nature of the political process in making decisions about the distribution of resources (whether inside a business company, or in a democratic society). also consider adding buzzwords for the security politics field like: comprehensive approach (dated cca about 2010-2015), resilience (in current use - cca 2015-2019), and many others. also it is a tad difficult to draw the line between "diplomacy speech" (a more or less accepted way of saying something that sounds nice or big without acually making commitment or deliberately adding ambiguity in order to rhetorically unify parties that have interests/aims not completely compatible, but with a promiseable capacity to be malleable enough to be united for some - perhaps limited - extent) and the shameless use of buzzwords in many texts (including science) to pretend that the speaker is participating in a discourse but adding so much ambiguity that it is literally just a long idle chatter thats bottomline is "maybe yes maybe no maybe a third option i dont know and i dont care but i want to cheat you into thinking that i know something or i just want to exhaust your attention span so you entirely drop the topic".

also a typical use of buzzwords once they become the new "must have" is to repeat what already has been sayed in previous speeches/literature just with this time adding the new buzzword, thus the good old shoemaking process of i make uppers you make soles becomes comprehensive approach and mutual benefits and integration of capability and coordination of capacities and minimizing environmental footprint by producing less waste and reaching out and flexible and optimized and revolutionary and hand made and computerized (because labels are printed on a computer) and modern and ergonimical and whatnot else without actually changing anything else than the words used to describe it. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC).

also the reason behind buzzword use can be assumed from this excrept: "What is a manager to do? If you invite people to make mistakes in the name of creativity, they won’t. They will see this as empty rhetoric; in fact, instinct will tell them that making mistakes involves loss (possibly of their jobs). But if you come clean and tell them that mistakes will be penalized, again, you’ll get nothing. Sadly, evolutionary psychology brings this managerial quandary to the surface but cannot solve it. Effective managers need to be adept at the very difficult task of framing challenges in a way that neither threatens nor tranquilizes employees. (https://hbr.org/1998/07/how-hardwired-is-human-behavior)"

- it suggests that the build up of human psychology makes ambiguity in communications a much needed feature. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup required

In all categories, there are issues both with the words themselves and the category they fall into (and I say this not necessarily as a buzzword analyst or a linguist, just as a human being with intuition). For example…

Corporate

• "Artisan/artisanal" has no place in "Corporate"; it is a customer-facing marketing term. The only place within the corporate world wherein this term would be used as a buzzword would be, accordingly, within the marketing teams of corporations that specifically deal with consumer goods.
• "Mind share"—could someone provide a useful/concise source for this, please?
• "Headlights – to gain visibility into"—This is either an unclear definition or it's grammatically wrong somehow; I can't tell which. I'd also appreciate a source or external definition.

Science and technology

• Again, not my area of expertise, but many of these—I'm looking at "HTML5" and "Podcasting"—are just…well…actual things. Not buzzwords. In the same spirit, I'm thankful that a previous Wikipedian's suggestions to add a Political Buzzwords section with words such as "Holocaust", "Apartheid", and "Slavery", was not accepted. Although these words are apparently confusing to some people (including tech/programming words like HTML5), they are not buzzwords.

I agree with what you are saying!words like Artisan, etc. are overused and usually used in the wrong context! The word issues is a prime example of misuse of the English language! I have had discussions with people in government who love to call my problems "issues", last I looked the word issue means to bring forth, not to state that there is a problem! The grammar here is atrocious! ROADRUNNER3699 (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)