I use the word "misconfigured" all the time, but MS Word, Chrome, and the two dictionaries I checked don't list it as a word.

I'm going to keep using it instead of "configured incorrectly" because I believe it communicates an obvious meaning. However, is it a word that I can use formally? If not, why not?


Mis- is a productive prefix, so I see no reason why it should not be allowed to form new verbs, unless used instead of a better word if such exists. The OED agrees:

As now apprehended, the prefix normally implies not censure of the act itself, but only of its manner. With this restriction, nonce-words may be formed very freely. In the 17th c. the use was much wider, and many of the formations of that period would now be inadmissible.

An alternative could be malconfigured, if you wish to use a Latinate prefix to a Latinate word.


It seems that "misconfigure" is an acceptable word by Wiktionary standards.

I believe that if your formal communication involves writing to or talking with somebody who has tried to "configure" something, the message will be clear, and thus, the usage acceptable. If you are in a context where there is danger of miscommunication or misunderstanding, then you might prefer the "configured incorrectly" version. However, note that in the latter, you run the risk of somebody misinterpreting it to mean that there was a single "correct" configuration that was possible. Hence, I believe, in general misconfigure(d) is more accurate, and thereby more preferable.


At the very least, it is widely used computer jargon. Google lists 275k hits for misconfigured.

(Side note: My spell checker, on Linux chrome, does not recognise misconfigured, but does recognise its cousin "misconfiguration").