> The second question was 'enormity'. The two choices were 'immensity' and 'wickedness'. However, those are _both_ valid definitions for the word 'enormity'.

Absolutely not. Dictionaries are picking up that definition because it's commonly mistakenly used, not because it's correct. Most will label it a colloquialism, if indeed they include it at all. I refer you to the excellent book "The Highly Selective Dictionary For the Extraordinarily Literate," by Eugene Ehrlich, who has some remarkably intelligent and insightful things to say about the evolution of language and their verbicidal approach to defining words. He resents the casual misuse of language, yet, at the same time, is not one of these sticklers that refuses to let language follow a natural evolution.

"Enormity" is one of several words that did not evolve so much as get corrupted by those confusing it with "enormousness," which it never meant.

I read the Merriam-Webster entry. While their argument is sound, I

1. Extreme wickedness.
2. A monstrous offense or evil; outrage.

"Enormousness" is not listed as one of its definitions.

I read the Merriam-Webster entry, and their explanation of the issue. While their argument is sound, I do not believe it leads to the conclusion that their definition #3 (immensity) is a valid definition. A more appropriate conclusion from their argument would be no more than the justification of American Heritage's definition #2, quoted above. "Monstrosity" I can agree would be a definition for "enormity." But not "immensity" or "enormousness."

So the inclusion of that particular question in the Word Trivia category of Trivia Stampede was not happenstance -- rather, it was a small evangelical effort on my part to educate and dissuade people from using the word the wrong way.