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

481–490 of 735 posts

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

#481

Post by spondylosaurus »

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"…

Thank you for taking a stand against the ever-encroaching scourge of "utilize." That one bugs me almost as much as "in order to" does. (Just say "to"!)

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

#482

Post by Meekro »

matteoraso wrote: post #463
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.

>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. Wikipedia is nothing but a superminority making the website their playground, though[0]. If you get rid of the superminority, the website literally couldn't function. The inner workings of Wikipedia are actually a fascinating rabbit hole to fall into, but t…

I'm reminded of an old saying, "The world is run by those who show up."

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

#483

Post by tayo42 »

make3 wrote: post #420
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.

one guy deciding to change 90k articles unilateraly is kind of insane indeed.

i find grammar obsession on the internet to be insane overall. you ever use the wrong their/there/theyre and have some guy reply with some unhinged comment. such odd behavior

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

#484

Post by bjourne »

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…

It depends on whether you presume language knowledge to be descriptive or prescriptive. Neither view is right or wrong. For example, I'm a native speaker of C, yet my syntax errors are still errors.

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

#485

Post by ghaff »

JackFr wrote: post #384
denton-scratch wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

There was a fascinating article in the Economist many years ago about the worldwide predominance of English. (This was pre ubiquitous internet.) The reasons given were 1) British colonialism 2) Post WWII American hegemony 3) No one cares if you speak it poorly.

>3) No one cares if you speak it poorly

And this is maybe just a slightly more charitable rephrasing of #3 but very open to loan words and alternative ways of phrasing things.

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

#486

Post by fknorangesite »

matteoraso wrote: post #471
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…

>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.

> There are authoritative guides on English (e.g. the Webster dictionary)

This is exactly wrong. Webster's is not prescriptivist; a dictionary describes a language as it is, not as it "should" be (indeed, there is no such thing).

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

#487

Post by epgui »

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.

Grammar and style guides are prescriptive in nature.

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

#488

Post by epgui »

tayo42 wrote: post #483
make3 wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one guy deciding to change 90k articles unilateraly is kind of insane indeed.

i find grammar obsession on the internet to be insane overall. you ever use the wrong their/there/theyre and have some guy reply with some unhinged comment. such odd behavior

I don’t know about the unhinged comments, but grammar is important and people who don’t care are wrong not to care.

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

#489

Post by dmix »

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.

Society always has people who contribute to specific things way more than the general population. And not even just generally in specific niches but some people are just highly productive and highly motivated.

I don’t think there can be a system to balance this without harming the wider system simply because these people make up the bulk of the work being done, and enforcement systems usually cause much of the same sort of power centralization, but often worse.

Of course not all of the work by these powerusers is useful but I can’t imagine a system that only blocks the bad work without harming the highly productive ‘good’ people who are trying to be more representative of the public. Plus stereotypically making the rules/processes is the easy part, because people are motivated at the start to fix things, but after it’s in place the actual hard work of enforcing it and doing it right is often neglected… or these same small groups of “powerusers” will also end up running the moderation and use it to explicitly control things even more.

Although those risks/issues has rarely stopped people from trying in the past.

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

#490

Post by AlbertCory »

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.

You know, I'll take a very minority POV: overall, Wikipedia does a pretty decent job of reporting the facts. I'll trust what they say about some non-controversial person or event much more than any other media outlet.

Of course it's not perfectly unbiased, and anal super-pedants do make it intolerable to try to contribute. That said, they do at least make an effort to stick to the facts.

Post reply on HN