The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Utter neologism. Google had never heard the word before this article arrived. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many people in a number of countries are discussing laws related to Homosocratic or professorless institutions of higher education.
I will be happy to tell them that Wikipedia has decided that it is not a word. I understand that you work for universities and the threat of free education scares you. But Wikipedia is not the hoar of the universities or big business. Just because goodle does not have the word means nothing. Google has gone commercial and is not listing sites that do not pay them now. Try to find Free MIT on google. Try to find Free A&M University. They are gone from google but have hundreds of students.
Just leave the word and go fight Freedom and Open Communication elsware. You are the reason for the term wikinazzis. You will find that term on google but not on Wikipedia.Scottprovost (talk) Scottprovost (talk) Scottprovost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Funny, all mention of Free A&M University was removed from Wikipedia by this Wikinazzi bacause it didn't appear on Google. Scottprovost (talk)
I am today removing the dead (no article linked) reference from list for "* Free A&M University, located in Texas, USA;" because after exhaustive search I have found:
1.) Texas A&M is not "free" and does require tuition.
2.) Texas A&M does not appear to promote any usage of the term "free" in their own self-description.
3.) There does not appear to be a free "agricultural and mechanical" or "A&M" "university" anywhere in Texas, USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.33.234.149 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
that IP address traces to a person who sells CLEP exams under the guise of a free university in violation of Georgia Law similar to the law in Texas we argue we are not subject to. We sell nothing. Quit using Google as a standard. It is no longer.
The term was used at the Institute for General Semantics who publishes General Semantics Bulletin. The publication is not available on the internet and they are not certain the discussion at the conference was included in any publications. They also indicated that just because someone used the obvious conjunction homo-Socratic did not make it a word. They insist that it would be an obvious conjunction and most certainly used over the years but may require a hyphen to be proper. I will continue to look for a better siting Scottprovost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
As of March 16th 2009 I have not been able to find any references to the word that do not trace back to me. The discussion at the IGS was related to another word autosocratic that is also a created word. It too is an obvious conjunction and both words were being used in the context of discussing neologisms even though they did not use that term. If someone used the term without hearing it from me, I am not aware of it. They insist that it must be a good word with an obvious definition and useful as a quality neologism. But that it should be moved to wherever Wikipedia keeps neologisms until it is accepted into use.
We have students in many countries that use the term when explaining the type of school they go to but they got it from me. I honestly thought it was a real word. Someone even gave me a definition for it.
Whenever I use the term in academic circles, there is no need to give a definition, everyone knows what it means without being told. I think this may be an exception to the rule and may in fact be a word by virtue of it's obvious meaning independent of weather anyone uses it or not.
Maybe Google is not God?
I vote that we let the word exist as an obvious and useful conjunctive word with only one possible meaning that is obvious tomost all who hear it. Scottprovost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]