A bit more on who defines words.  I need to thank Mark for being such a great straight man for saying this like:

“You don't get to redefine "canon."  The Church owns the word.  The  
environment can do that -- documenting which, btw, is the whole point  
of the Oxford English Dictionary -- but you can't.”

There aren’t yet words in the dictionaries for new things theoreticians and scientists are discovering like effing the ineffable which is being canonized in that survey topic on the best word to use.  Today, it takes hours of discussion with another philosopher, only to finally realize you are talking about the same thing, just using different terminology.

Also, the current bad (ambiguous) definition of words like “red”, contained in the Oxford English Dictionary, is one of the primary reasons we have such a hard time understanding what consciousness is.  So, if you want to see what the emerging expert consensus is saying is a better definition for the word “red”, and a new definition for the word “redness” (the label for a very different set of physical qualities in our brain we can be directly aware of)  both of which I predict will eventually show up in a hopefully, someday, no longer qualia blind Oxford Dictionary, again see “Representational Qualia Theory”.

And if Mark still doesn't like my usage of the term "canon", he is welcome to canonize that view, to see if anyone else agrees with him.  If there are lots of people that think this way, we can make an effort to appease this view.  Our goal is always to first, find out, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants (by definition, consensus) and then find creative ways to get it all, for everyone.