Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of” • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#471

Post by matteoraso » Sat, May 06, 2023, 6:41 PM UTC

gnulinux wrote: post #419

denton-scratch wrote: post #214

"Comprises" means "consists of". So "comprised of" means "consists of of". It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong. Whenever I come across the word "utilize" in WP, I change it to "use" (with the edit comment "Don't utilize utilize"). Nobody's ever reverted me for that. I think there is a proper use for the verb "utilize": it means "to render useful". But usually, it's just a substitute for "use"…

I know this is shocking to people but if a phrase is systematically used by native speakers, it is then part of the language. There is no notion of native speakers being systematically wrong in linguistics. It wouldn't make sense scientifically. In order to examine natural languages using the scientific method, linguists gather data (i.e. native speakers' spoken or written communication) and then analyze this (i.e. f…

>Languages simply are the way they are.

Not necessarily true. There are authoritative guides on English (e.g. the Webster dictionary) that grammar is measured up against. In fact, the main reason we have standardized spelling instead of people just writing what seemed right is because people actively tried to enforce a right and wrong way of spelling.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#472

Post by ghaff » Sat, May 06, 2023, 6:45 PM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #452

JW_00000 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After your first sentence, I thought you were going to argue the opposite. This person's arguments seem to hold water. Aren't the people that argue with him and want to revert his edits a (very strange) activist superminority? Maybe we need a defense mechanism against bike-shedding, no matter what color bikeshed one prefers?

> This person's arguments seem to hold water. Not in the slightest. Categorically, he's using prescriptive arguments, which are bunk. Language evolves, people can use it however they want.

Nonsense. Editors will edit based on whatever style guides they use and what's generally considered "proper" usage while respecting the author's stylistic choices as much as possible.

With respect to this case, I'd have to see a given usage in context but I would probably generally leave it as is.

If I'm editing you I'll try to avoid making a lot of changes that boil down to stylistic choice but I will absolutely change things I (and my references) consider wrong.

ADDED: You can of course personally use language however you want. But others will judge you based on that.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#473

Post by lipoid_ecole » Sat, May 06, 2023, 6:46 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #357

vajrabum wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. If you look at Wiktionary or if you prefer, your favorite etymology dictionary, the word utilize is descended from Latin from the French word utiliser, via the Italian utilizzare which got it from the Latin utilis. All of those words mean to use. I'd be the last person to say you're wrong. Matters of grammar and usage ultimately boil down to does it feel right and current usage. As is usual with these th…

Nevertheless, "use" is a better word. Using longer words, when shorter words are available that mean the same thing, comes across as pompous or pretentious.

Sometimes, the longer word has a connotation that more clearly expresses our intention. Sometimes we want Hemmingway and other times we want Faulkner.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#474

Post by cogitoergofutuo » Sat, May 06, 2023, 6:46 PM UTC

karaterobot wrote: post #425

cogitoergofutuo wrote: post #307

I love these one-person crusades against present reality. Words mean whatever a critical mass of people want them to mean. For example, the usage of the present tense here: "Composed of" and "consists of" are better alternatives. is incorrect. It should read: Composed of" and "consists of" were better alternatives. This thread is literally a clout ATM machine for a group comprised of pedants.

How do we decide whether someone is using a word incorrectly, or if we should update our present reality? Another question: are there places where accuracy and precision are more important than others? Would an encyclopedia be one of those places? I'll reveal my cards here: I believe so.

I am happy that you brought up accuracy _and_ precision!

Somewhat humorously I think a good chunk of the disagreements here come from people treating those concepts interchangeably. Attempts to apply mathematical reasoning to language and interpretation are doomed to fall into similar traps.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#475

Post by samirillian » Sat, May 06, 2023, 6:47 PM UTC

giraffe_lady wrote: post #455

samirillian wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally didn't answer my one question, yet you keep asking more. Even Socrates answered questions when asked. I could engage your other points, but why bother

You want me to answer questions like "how do we make judgements about things?" I don't think this is that sort of venue sorry.

Okay now you're just trolling me. The question that starts with "I have a question for you." Did you look at the Orwell link.

> Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

Language is indeed consciously shaped. Look at the history of Italian. It doesn't just happen, and Wikipedia definitely doesn't just happen.

And if you disagree with Orwell, fine, just don't trot him out in support of your points. Which was my original point.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#476

Post by kurthr » Sat, May 06, 2023, 6:50 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #255

kurthr wrote: post #154

I hope he never has to read a US patent where "comprised of" is almost a required usage not only in the spec, but in the claims! It's expected by the examiners and demanded by patent lawyers as a term of art as interpreted by an appellate court. The term "comprises" and/or "comprised of" has a specific usage in patents. Comprising means that at least all of the listed elements must exist, but other elements that are…

I dare say you could find some of those 90k changes are to patent wording on Wikipedia.

It's weird I suppose, but in anything other than a very formal (legal, medical, scientific, education, marketing?!?) contexts I find correcting another fluent speaker's english to be (especially colloquialisms, grammar, and word choice) just wrong. You can add context to it, but not really correct.

Unless they're a dear friend, and they knew what they meant to say better than you. A person is expressing their feeling/opinion/interpretation in their vernacular. Yes, it is probably stream of consciousness, but that is exactly what it is, and just changing one word or phrase doesn't help make it clear.

I suppose wikipedia is edumacational so I guess I understand, but unless he's really reading all of the surrounding context of 90k pages (unlikely) then he certainly risks making embarrassing errors.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#477

Post by ghaff » Sat, May 06, 2023, 6:50 PM UTC

JW_00000 wrote: post #450

gnulinux wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is shocking to people but if a phrase is systematically used by native speakers, it is then part of the language. There is no notion of native speakers being systematically wrong in linguistics. It wouldn't make sense scientifically. In order to examine natural languages using the scientific method, linguists gather data (i.e. native speakers' spoken or written communication) and then analyze this (i.e. f…

OK, but does that mean the phrase should be used as such in an encyclopedia? For instance, the word "biweekly" now means both "once every two weeks" and "twice per week". I don't mind usage of that word for those two meanings. Obviously, linguists can gather data and analyze how it's being used. They may conclude that one meaning was more favored 50 years ago and the other meaning is now. But when I'm reading an ency…

Biweekly (and probably semi-weekly) is one of those words that should be generally avoided. It's like depending on some less obvious operator precedence rule rather than parentheses. You may be technically correct, but you shouldn't do it that way because others will misunderstand you.

ADDED: I'm genuinely confused why people would disagree with this (which is in multiple style guides). I assume it's some variant of I know what it really means and, if someone else doesn't, that's their problem. But that seems antithetical to writing to communicate something to an audience.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#478

Post by cogitoergofutuo » Sat, May 06, 2023, 6:50 PM UTC

dataflow wrote: post #461

cogitoergofutuo wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only speak for myself, but the actual phrase “comprised of” is the least interesting thing to discuss when it comes to this topic. I am fascinated by a single person taking up the cause of “correcting” the language of others based off of their personal linguistic aesthetic preference. I don’t see many people saying “I often have to stop at the words ‘comprised of’ and reevaluate the meaning of the sentence that…

But again, this isn't even about correcting others' language. People are fine to use whatever language that serves them personally well in their lives - but this isn't about that. It's about writing encyclopedia articles in a way that's best for their readers. Every comment I'm reading here so far seems to insist this is somehow personal toward the author and correcting them, whereas it really isn't.

> It's about writing encyclopedia articles in a way that's best for their readers.

This sentence contains a load-bearing “best”. The Wikipedia editor’s contention is that they have established the canonical “best”, and it is that contention that is being scrutinized.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#479

Post by cogitoergofutuo » Sat, May 06, 2023, 6:53 PM UTC

everybodyknows wrote: post #399

cogitoergofutuo wrote: post #307

I love these one-person crusades against present reality. Words mean whatever a critical mass of people want them to mean. For example, the usage of the present tense here: "Composed of" and "consists of" are better alternatives. is incorrect. It should read: Composed of" and "consists of" were better alternatives. This thread is literally a clout ATM machine for a group comprised of pedants.

What is a "clout ATM machine"?

An ATM machine that dispenses clout.

Re: Wikipedia user edits over 90k uses of “comprised of”

#480

Post by lIl-IIIl » Sat, May 06, 2023, 6:54 PM UTC

adjav wrote: post #264

lIl-IIIl wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I go house" is not standard English. When they said 'There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of"' it is implied that those other ways are standard English. >The author could have just written "I don't like 'comprised of', and I'm going to impose my preference on everyone else, even though the term has been part of standard contemporary English for a long time." But they are not imposing…

There is no "standard English." There sure as hell isn't a consensus that "comprised of" is incorrect, or it wouldn't have been used over 90k times.

It is a consensus reached by the Wikipedia editing community, or the edits wouldn't be so overwhelmingly accepted. There are probably more than 90k typos in Wikipedia that doesn't mean they are correct.

"Standard English" is a poor choice of words, but I'm not sure how to describe what "I go house" is. Not grammatically correct English?