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

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

#351

Post by samirillian » Sat, May 06, 2023, 4:43 PM UTC

giraffe_lady wrote: post #339

samirillian wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this guy on Wikipedia, who clearly cares more then you do, for one. Dictionaries, style guides, people like Orwell, the French do have a ministry to maintain the language. I've answered your question, now I have one for you: Did you even glance at the link? I'm sorry, these epistemologically relativist arguments lead to utterly absurd conclusions. How does wikipedia work at all? How can we ever make judgements a…

How does wikipedia work? How does language work? Linguists have firmly determined that it does not work by a coterie of elites handing down decisions about correctness, regardless of what france pretends their "immortels" do. That also doesn't mean "anything goes" either, obviously, since we do clearly speak a mutually comprehensible dialect through no intentional coordination. It's an interesting subject! You could…

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

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

#352

Post by dataflow » Sat, May 06, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

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 I don't quite understand is the resistance. It's a fact that some people (and I mean readers, not the editors) don't like, understand, and/or accept the new meaning of this word, whether we like it or not. Whereas everyone should be agreeing that the alternatives are fine. So if you have an alternative everyone is fine with... it seems like a no-brainer to use it? When you have something that everyone is happy with, why insist on an alternative that some people hate?

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

#353

Post by sgustard » Sat, May 06, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

p-e-w wrote: post #10

The justifications given in that essay leave a really bad taste in my mouth: > I believe using "comprised of" is poor writing, because > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. That's true for many, many other words. In fact, most instances of definite and indefinite articles "add nothing to the language", since the actual…

The most relevant argument is: this is an encyclopedia, its very purpose is to be precise. And words like "comprise" are specifically about defining the meaning and composition of terms. If the encyclopedia is sloppy with words why does it even exist?

Another point: the era of a human doing rote language cleanup is nearly over; surely an LLM can do better?

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

#354

Post by denton-scratch » Sat, May 06, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #335

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"…

> it's simply wrong That makes as much sense as saying that "ne... pas" in French is a double negative and therefore "simply wrong" to use as a straight negative. No -- language isn't math, and English and other languages are chock-full of inconsistencies and seemingly "illogical" things. Language ultimately rests on convention , on real life usage -- not logic. Arguing that a common usage is illogical is fighting ag…

"ne... pas" in French is nothing more nor less than the correct way of formulating certain kinds of statements containing a negative. If you left out either of "ne" or "pas" in such a construction, people would either laugh, or assume you were some kind of primitive language generator.

It's absurd that English speakers are so tolerant of incorrect usage. It's partly the pedagogic principle that "All shall have prizes" at the school sports day; but it's significant that if you try to correct incorrect usage, you get referred to literary figures such as poets and playwrights that used some term incorrectly, as if people like (e.g.) Pepys are authorities.

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

#355

Post by cratermoon » Sat, May 06, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

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.

"ATM machine"? RAS syndrome.

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

#356

Post by notatoad » Sat, May 06, 2023, 4:54 PM UTC

p-e-w wrote: post #10

The justifications given in that essay leave a really bad taste in my mouth: > I believe using "comprised of" is poor writing, because > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. That's true for many, many other words. In fact, most instances of definite and indefinite articles "add nothing to the language", since the actual…

you're right that the essay is poorly argued. it all amounts to a whole lot of words saying basically "i don't like it" and trying to claim opinions as fact.

but also, i agree. i don't like it either. so i'm not sure the whole essay is necessary, but i appreciate the work this person is doing to remove the bad writing from wikipedia.

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

#357

Post by denton-scratch » Sat, May 06, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

vajrabum wrote: post #251

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"…

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.

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

#358

Post by jzb » Sat, May 06, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

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.

Allow me to quote you back to you. "It’s also not really serverless to begin with, because at the end of the day code is being executed on a physical device that many of us might call a “server” [1]

A critical mass of people have adopted the term serverless. Therefore, the term means whatever they want it to mean, right? No sense in swimming against the tide here, correct?

Yes, words mean what people want them to mean if we're willing to shrug our shoulders and accept the new usage or terminology. That doesn't mean it's never correct to fight against sloppy or non-standard usage in the hopes that it won't be considered standard.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35811741&p=2#35812073

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

#359

Post by joe__f » Sat, May 06, 2023, 4:56 PM UTC

captainmuon wrote: post #268

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I actually prefer the use "is comprised of" over "comprises". For the supposedly correct version, you can almost always say it differently: E.g. simply: A proton contains three quarks. But if you want to use passive voice, there is no good other option. A proton is made of three quarks? Sounds too colloquial. ...is put together from...? No. I think "A proton is comprised of three quarks…

I usually see 'a proton is made up of three quarks'

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

#360

Post by smcl » Sat, May 06, 2023, 4:56 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #321

bloppe wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is the ambiguity. Someone who uses the original meaning of comprise will interpret a sentence in the opposite way of someone using the new. "America comprises many states and territories" -> "Many states and territories are comprised of America" have the same meaning with the original definition. With the new definition, you'd have to invert both sentences. This is called a Janus word because it can…

> the original is still more widespread than the new. I'm not so sure. Google ngrams has the new usage recently taking over in published books[0], and those usually learn conservative in their usage. [0] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+o... (this works because ~no one uses comprise in the passive voice in the old meaning)

And use of the suggested (and more correct) alternative "composed of" is more common than both of them combined: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+o...