Am I the only person who finds it vaguely amusing that an article about dictionary entries should erroneously use the word "principle", where it should be "principal"?

"He was the principal editor of the group" - he was the main editor.

"He was the principle editor of the group" - he was responsible for maintaining the list of things the group stands for.

I thank you.

Is it now possible to call someone a "wiki"...

Someone who endlessly talks about a subject they know nothing about, based on what someone else has said.

Is being a "wiki" better or worse than a "chav" ?

The pedantry isn't misplaced at all, there's no such thing as a "princple editor".

Do you really think the OED employs someone full time to compile a list of princples that they stand for? Does a dictionary even have principles?

And, lo and behold, El Reg themselves have corrected it to "principal".

A word making the OED is not news, it's statistics. The OED is no académie-driven Grand Robert, it's a descriptive dictionary; a dictionary of record, if you like. Its authority is scholarly, not prescriptive, and thank goodness; the lack of an « English Academy » is one of the reasons English is such an adaptive and vibrant language. (What a thought: English is run like Wikipedia! Maybe we should all switch to French after all...)