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

491–500 of 735 posts

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

#491

Post by ghaff »

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.

They're not quite the same thing. One example I see online is using "utilize" to suggest that something is used beyond its intended purpose. (I'm not sure I even completely buy that.) But, in general, "use" is shorter and sounds less jargony.

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

#492

Post by UncleMeat »

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"…

"Yeah no" and "No yeah" mean clear and different things, despite being superficially total nonsense. I've probably heard "comprised of" thousands of times in my life to mean "made of." What's wrong with phrases having meaning?

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

#493

Post by ghaff »

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #427
fauxpause_ wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only think it did in the past though.

Then it should have been "This post comprised good points." The "is" shouldn't be there. I might be wrong tho, I'm not a native speaker.

"This post is comprised of good points" is probably technically grammatical but it's an awful sentence. "This post made good points" works better. Better still would be getting more specific.

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

#495

Post by Izkata »

zephrx1111 wrote: post #186
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…

Sorry, but as a non-native English speaker, “compromised of” confuses me more, I guess mostly because I was exposed to the other meaning too much.

"Compromised" and "comprised" are different words.

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

#496

Post by dataflow »

cogitoergofutuo wrote: post #478
dataflow wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Best for readers" is not particularly subjective here. We're talking about an encyclopedia whose audience is the entire English-speaking population. Its #1 job is to communicate relevant information on each topic clearly and accurately to the broadest audience in each language - not to match anyone's preferred terminology, write Shakespearean prose, or push the boundaries of the language. We already have multiple words that are perfectly well-suited for use with the intended meaning - we don't even have that luxury with so many other words. Deliberately picking a word that confuses some readers and annoys others just introduces problems and friction where there don't need to be any.

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

#497

Post by fknorangesite »

bandyaboot wrote: post #114

> It's illogical for a word to mean two opposite things. Maybe he can tackle “literally” once he is finished with “comprise”.

The use of "literally" as an intensifier goes back centuries. I'm not sure why people act as if it's some kind of new development.

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

#498

Post by tayo42 »

epgui wrote: post #488
tayo42 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thats just your opinion. if you understand me and i understand you then were good. my experience with grammar is that it just explains how we talk, like music theory. when your young and learning to speak, you just speak, your parent (probably) don't sit down with a white board and explain noun and complex verbs tenses at the age of four

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

#499

Post by cmonnow »

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…

[dead]

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

#500

Post by alasdair_ »

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…

>a minority of the minority produces a lot

They produce a whole lot of edits. They don't actually contribute an especially large amount of content, which is the thing with real value.

The content is mostly written by subject matter experts that contribute large blocks of useful text to just a few articles each.

Post reply on HN