Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 735 posts

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

#441

Post by skupig »

denton-scratch wrote: post #237
tysam_and wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this to be a false equivalence. People can horribly misuse the phrase "comprised of". Bland articles that directly communicate the language can be more or less tasteful depending upon who is reading them. Almost assuredly sentences can be written without "comprised of" that are also definitely not bland. But classifying something you find easier to read as better language for everyone doesn't make it immediate…

> People can horribly misuse the phrase "comprised of". I think that phrase is always incorrect. I suspect the problem is that people aren't used to words that take a list as their direct argument, like "comprise". Wikipedia leans heavily to descriptivism (as do nearly all lexicons, these days). So there's no incorrect usage; there's only usage that jars, for some people. I don't go around telling people they're igno…

Correct according to whom? The language you speak is the result of thousands of years of casual communication by billions of human beings. Precriptivism of a living natural language is hubris.

What seems like perfect English to you is not perfect to everyone.

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

#443

Post by graboidhunter »

It is interesting that the account hasn't been flagged as a "single purpose account." I had an account in the past. I made two edits before people who disagreed with my edits started screaming WP:SPA[0]. It really soured my interest in contributing.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_accou...

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

#444

Post by nirvdrum »

gnulinux wrote: post #410
nirvdrum wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If words don't matter, then ignore the edits. People tend to copy what they see. If they see it written with the original definition, maybe that's what the hivemind will adopt. I don't see a problem with that and I don't see the point in attacking people that care. I'm sure you have things in your life you care about.

No, the point is words do matter, and they mean what people think they mean. Not people from 100 years ago from a prestige university who wrote a dictionary. Languages are fluid, they change and when they do change the present reality is the way the language is spoken.

Obviously there's no universal agreement on which phrase is correct. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having a discussion. I don't know how many people we're even talking about. I'm certain the group that uses "comprises" instead of "comprised of" is not entirely "people from 100 years ago from prestige university who wrote a dictionary."

I understand languages change, which I think is an argument for the edits. If the language pivoted one way, pivoting back is just as valid a change as any other. "Comprised of" and similar phrasing doesn't come out of the ether. They build in popularity as they propagate through writing. There's a big snowball effect. I suspect going forward, you'll see "comprises" or "consists of" because people just copy what they see. Most don't have a strongly formed opinion about which phrase is better.

Personally, I view writing as a craft or skill like any other. Writing is different than speech and always has been. There's a huge qualitative difference in text that has been edited and text that is streamed out of someone's head. The former is almost always clearer to understand. Consequently, if someone points out a grammatical issue to me I say "Oh, TIL, thanks for letting me know" and then I adapt and go on with my life. My bias is to the established norm, not arguing that I'm riding the wave of a linguistic revolution. If I have an open question on something, I'll consult an established resource, just like I would in any other field or craft.

I think the problem is people get embarrassed when they're told they're using the language incorrectly. I get it. I've been there. It's true that English does not have a governing body like French, but I don't see that as a compelling justification for redefining terms or just arguing that nothing can ever be wrong.

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

#445

Post by JW_00000 »

woooooo wrote: post #364
dataflow wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

There are a billion of us speaking the language. It's a little presumptuous to tell a billion people what to do and there should probably be some amount of default resistance.

There's 380 million native speaker of this language, but another billion non-native speakers. If this change helps that latter billion, should the former 380 million object?

(On a personal note, as a non-native speaker of English I've always found the phrase "comprised of" confusing. I infer the "directionality" based on context but am unsure how to use it correctly myself.)

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

#446

Post by SPBS »

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 tidbits to know about the English language but I'm not about to correct someone for that.

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

#447

Post by robertoandred »

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.

I'm enjoying the argument that the meaning of words in an encyclopedia should be subjective.

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

#448

Post by fnordpiglet »

ezekiel68 wrote: post #414

I don't know the right solution to this problem, but I wish there were some kind of effective defense mechanism in open society against activist superminorities. Pedants tilting at windmills shouldn't be able to alter the cultural landscape this easily. I am aware that their problem and my problem are privileged "first-world problems". The seeds of the open society carry the germ of this pathology, I guess.

It doesn’t seem like it’s that easy a task. I’d argue improving grammar and language in an encyclopedia isn’t altering the cultural landscape, I don’t think the usage of “comprised of” is a meaningful cultural artifact that requires embodying in an encyclopedias language style. I’d note the person also allows for people to revert the change without consequence if they feel passionate about the cultural landscape of “comprised of” usage vs generally accepted better alternatives.

I actually kind of admire these folks that do stuff like this. These sorts of obsessions are interesting artifacts of the internet’s cultural landscape.

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

#449

Post by nitwit005 »

dataflow wrote: post #416
nitwit005 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike the way you communicate. It's wrong. I don't care if a majority of people agree with you. That doesn't matter. Can't see why anyone would be annoyed.

Why take this personally? This is not a personal battle. It's isn't about disliking the way a person communicates, nor about it being right or wrong. It's about the way Wikipedia articles communicate, namely, in a way that hopefully minimizes friction for their readers (whom it's there for - it's not there for the editors), without compromising on accuracy. I would think editors really ought to be able to distinguish…

You asked why there is resistance. I summarized a portion of their argument, in blunt terms, as that makes it clear why some people might be upset.

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

#450

Post by JW_00000 »

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…

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 encyclopedia, I'd prefer it to avoid this ambiguous word.

Post reply on HN