There are two large linguistic camps called the traditionalists and the revisionists. Essentially, traditionalists resist the formation of new words, while revisionists encourage it. The study of language is challenging, but I think there are a few retrospective insights in philology.
Traditionalists emphasize the importance of linguistic rules, and generally are sticklers for grammar, syntax, and pronunciation. Revisionists support the flexibility and creativity of language, celebrating all the diversity they encounter. Wordsmith-ing is almost always unintentional. Neologisms become gradually acceptable as more people find it useful for communication and expression. Therefore a change in language is an actual record of the changes in culture.
While I see the logic in the traditionalist camp, I feel it often defeats the purpose of language, which is expression and communication. If people are trying to be academic, then yes, the rules are important. But ‘academic’ is not the standard for how language changes, people are. Whether people find it useful in communicating or expressing, is the rule for which words and expressions eventually become adopted or changed.
People are not logical. People break rules. Why then should we scold people’s creativity in communication? If we have a problem with a pronunciation, it’s either because we are uncomfortable with a different culture and we are too ethnocentric. Or if it occurs within one’s own culture, then it is more rooted in one’s own prejudices against the people who use it. Language has historically been used (and still is) an isolating mechanism for the poor and uneducated.