You'd need a dictionary for that
One Steve Huff complains at The New York Observer about some contemporary words that have been added to the Oxford English Dictionary:
The Internet has been infecting the Oxford Dictionary of English with already-dated web-based slang for years now. The newest list of words Oxford's lexicographers have deemed worthy of enshrining in their storied dictionary's pages reflects the emergence of social media and hacker terminology ... as well as abiding influence of slackerdom.
There are so many things wrong with these two sentences that one has to wonder whether Mr. Huff has ever looked into the OED's storied pages or, for that matter, troubled to educate himself on what dictionaries are for. Let’s take them in order.
1. The OED is a huge word hoard. It attempts to be comprehensive about the words that lodge themselves in English.
2. It is a dictionary on historical principles, showing the origin and development of words. It contains many that thrived for a time but are now obsolete, so “already-dated web-based slang” doesn’t disqualify anything.
3. It is not a shrine. It is a record of the language, high and low.
4. What appears to be lurking underneath this passage is the belief that the dictionary legitimizes words—remember all the English teachers who had the vapors when Webster’s Third International included ain’t?—and therefore in this case endorses slackerdom. Stated explicitly, it looks as fatuous as it is.
5. Someday someone is going to come across chillax, buzzkill, or bromance in a text and wonder what they mean and how they were used. That, Mr. Huff, is what dictionaries are for.
I carelessly overlooked that Mr. Huff was writing about The Oxford Dictionary of English, which emphasizes contemporary usages, not the OED. That said, there’s all the more reason for such a dictionary to include current and recent slang, and there is a fair likelihood that much or all of it will eventually pass through the sacred portals.
I am grateful for the comments pointing out my error.