A problem with this is that there will be a tendency for it to become normative. This is what happened to the OED. Originally it was an etymological dictionary of the usage of English. Now it is regarded as an arbiter of 'correct' English.
Yes, true. It would turn description into prescription, but we're already approaching that point. I'm not advocating this, only mentioning it.
> This is what happened to the OED. Originally it was an etymological dictionary of the usage of English. Now it is regarded as an arbiter of 'correct' English.
I suspect those behind the OED would deny that as a goal, while acknowledging it as an outcome.
I have a little fun with people who think dictionaries prescribe correct usage, by pointing out that, according to current dictionaries, "literally" and "figuratively" mean the same thing. This is true because that's how people use the words, and a dictionary's purpose is to dispassionately record how people use words, without judgment or rancor.
This is why "reign it in" (now seen regularly) will become an accepted substitute for "rein it in" -- people want to say it that way, so be it. Reigning is what a monarch does to a kingdom, reining is what a cowboy does to a horse, but people are free to say what they want.
Apropos, my all-time favorite malapropism took place 50 years ago when I was a teenage TV repairman. I visited a household, spied a record turntable, and asked, "Is that a stereo turntable?" "No," replied the customer, "It's monorail."
I was able to avoid blurting out, "I think you mean monaural, yes?" -- for three reasons. One, it's regarded as bad form to correct the grammar of customers, who are always right. Two, technically, the turntable was in fact monorail (i.e. able to follow only one recorded track). Three, I was too busy trying not to laugh.