First, I was going to give an example like this:

“Web 2.0 has a number of important adders to Web 1.0, based on our learnings.”

Then I decided to search the web for a real example. I didn’t find what I expected.

What I found was a definition from an unofficial IBM jargon guide:

[adder]
n. An increment. These costs won’t look so attractive with the burden and inflation adders. Nominated for most obnoxious neologism of 1980. The word uplift is now a common and equally obnoxious alternative.

1980? I guess I am a bit behind the time here. I’ve not heard it before the last few weeks, when I have heard it several times.

I discussed the word “adder” with a friend, and he explained it was probably a derivation from the equally frustrating term “value-add”.

He also objected to the idea that English words had “definitions” rather than “meanings”. Fair enough – I wouldn’t want to be outed as a prescriptivist.

Jeffrey McManus wrote a similar article, ‘Learnings’ Is A Stupid, Stupid Word, and I leave the last word to one of his commenters:

“Learnings” sounds kind of like something you leave behind you after training. A nice steamy pile of learnings.

And anyway, “Learnings” was a word used by Shakespeare. How much more authoritainairical do you want?