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

501–510 of 735 posts

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

#501

Post by neltnerb »

jerry1979 wrote: post #467
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…

Who are the native speakers in the case of Wikipedia?

I think you have the crux of it... this person has a very long essay explaining why this change makes it more comprehensible to more readers.

This is what an editor should do. What's the problem? Let them spend their time on it if they like, it seems like most times no one even notices the change.

It's not being pedantic if you are doing it to improve real life readability based on real feedback, even if it seems trivial.

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

#502

Post by slily »

denton-scratch wrote: post #302
ggm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moral, no. But they might influence e.g. textbooks and legal drafting. That ordinateur is not ordinary and l'informatique isn't always very Informative. Unless I am mistaken both English words coming in from the French?

I like the French language; I was once fluent (when I was 6). So when I was sent on a course to do with computers in Paris, I said that my French was up to it. Wrong! My presence on the course was seriously disruptive, because French technical jargon (which I didn't learn at age 6) is unrecognisable to people who haven't learned that jargon in France (nobody else uses it).

How is that different from any other language?

For instance, Chinese/Eastern medical jargon is objectively more readable than Western terms (unless you are fluent in Greek and Latin), but that doesn't mean you'll be able to understand them without some prior exposure.

French is also spoken outside of France.

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

#504

Post by epgui »

tayo42 wrote: post #498
epgui wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sorry, what things were good and when? Your young what?

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

#505

Post by ghaff »

AlbertCory wrote: post #490
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.

I'm not sure that is a very minority POV.

I'm not sure about "much more than any other media outlet" but for mainstream non-controversial topics it's probably pretty accurate. It may not be comprehensible for anyone who isn't already an expert, it's maybe pretty thin if the person/subject isn't part of the modern tech and hobbyist zeitgeist, but it's probably not a bad starting point especially if it has a lot of good cites.

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

#506

Post by psychphysic »

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.

Wikipedia is entirely controlled by activist super minorities.

Articles are often heavily censored or simply biased.

Maybe the whole internet is?

But I find myself relying on Wikipedia less and less. I think chat searches are probably the final nail in the coffin for me directly access it.

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

#508

Post by jaggederest »

epgui wrote: post #487
jaggederest wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which is why we should ignore them and write however we like.

Note that I'm not saying we should write poorly, or deliberately sloppily, just it's at the author or editor's preference.

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

#509

Post by alasdair_ »

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…

>All of those words mean to use.

"The teachers were unable to utilize the new computers" means something different from "The teachers were unable to use the new computers"

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

#510

Post by junon »

tayo42 wrote: post #498
epgui wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Grammar is a linguistic study and more than just "like, a general guideline."

For example, "you're" and "your" are two very different words.

Let people obsess. They're not hurting you.

Post reply on HN