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

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

#521

Post by ghaff » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #512

ghaff wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Editors will edit based on whatever style guides they use and what's generally considered "proper" usage while respecting the author's stylistic choices as much as possible. With respect to this case, I'd have to see a given usage in context but I would probably generally leave it as is. If I'm editing you I'll try to avoid making a lot of changes that boil down to stylistic choice but I will absolutely cha…

Right, and they're free to do so, just don't try to justify it by saying it's "correct". I'm not saying we should write poorly, or deliberately sloppily, just it's at the author or editor's preference. I'd support this guy if he said "I hate 'comprised of' and so I am changing it where I can", but the idea that there's somehow a logical argument justifying it is silly. Appeal to authority is particularly silly in the…

>and the oxford comma, but I wouldn't make them the law

Oh, I would :-) But I do reluctantly conform to AP style in certain contexts.

That said, there is a certain appeal to authority mindset if you're looking for mainstream non-fiction (and a lot of fiction as well) publication. Maybe "correct" isn't the right term but "accepted practice" or something along those lines which boils down to more or less the same thing.

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

#522

Post by epgui » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:41 PM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #508

epgui wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

You do you, but I think it's insane not to want to have more norms around the particular uses of language. We already barely understand each other (see any political conversation or pseudoscientific debate on the internet where words get thrown around in abandon, with an abundance of ambiguous constructions).

The English/American are culturally less prescriptive around grammar, but other languages (such as French) are often much more prescriptive with it.

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

#523

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:41 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #472

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.

Nonsense. Editors will edit based on whatever style guides they use and what's generally considered "proper" usage while respecting the author's stylistic choices as much as possible. With respect to this case, I'd have to see a given usage in context but I would probably generally leave it as is. If I'm editing you I'll try to avoid making a lot of changes that boil down to stylistic choice but I will absolutely cha…

The Wikipedia editor here is not allowing personal use, part of their proposal is to edit quotes too - to me it reads as if the person has problems with compulsion and doesn't want to stop themselves from "correcting people" (which is not correction so much as forcing that editor's own personal linguistic predilections on others).

There methods comprise of robbing others autonomy. (Wording chosen purposefully!).

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

#524

Post by inimino » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:41 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #185

inimino wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"impose my preference on everyone else" By fixing a common mistake on a collaboratively edited encyclopedia? What are you even talking about? Do you have any idea what an editor does at the New York Times?

But it’s not a mistake to everyone, it’s just a mistake in this person and some others eyes. But it’s an accepted usage of the words. I’m not exactly familiar with specific editorial duties, but it seems NYTimes editors allow “comprised of” [0] so they don’t seem to correct all occurrences of “comprised of” by changing text to “composed of.” [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=%22comprised+of%22+site%3Any...

Yes it's a mistake exactly in the eyes of those who know the meaning of the word. "com" + "prise" = "grasp together". An error can be more common than the correct usage and still be an error.

Would you accept "A table setting is included of plate, fork, knife and spoon." as correct usage? What if "included" becomes rarely used in the future and this incorrect usage becomes relatively popular? Would that make it correct? Nonsense.

The job of an editor is to raise the level of the writing before it goes to print, including fixing common mistakes. A professional writer would just learn something from it and improve. What I'm amazed by is the number of people who seem outraged, like someone's right to freedom of expression is being violated because someone came along after and removed some mistakes and improved the writing, literally a Wikipedia editor just doing the job of an editor. And then a whole essay has to be written justifying it, and that's still not enough, and we are all discussing it even further. It's a remarkable phenomenon.

It makes me wonder if software developers are as defensive about common programming mistakes. If so we might have a bit of a problem.

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

#525

Post by epgui » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:42 PM UTC

tayo42 wrote: post #520

epgui wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If we were speaking out loud you could figure it out

And yet, we're not speaking out loud.

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

#526

Post by ikekkdcjkfke » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:44 PM UTC

pastacacioepepe wrote: post #242

fauxpause_ wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post is comprised good points.

> This post is comprised good points. This post comprises good points. This post consists of good points.

>This post comprises good points. >This post consists of good points.

There are items in the set that are good points.

All the items in the set are good points.

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

#527

Post by harles » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:45 PM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #500

matteoraso wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

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

That sounds like the ideal scenario. Any evidence that it is or isn’t this way? I would guess it’s skewed more towards a handful of folks simply writing many articles about things they’re moderately knowledgeable about.

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

#528

Post by pc86 » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:45 PM UTC

epgui wrote: post #522

jaggederest wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

You do you, but I think it's insane not to want to have more norms around the particular uses of language. We already barely understand each other (see any political conversation or pseudoscientific debate on the internet where words get thrown around in abandon, with an abundance of ambiguous constructions). The English/American are culturally less prescriptive around grammar, but other languages (such as French) ar…

Having majored in political science it's rare that political arguments are due to a lack of understanding. They're almost always due to just prioritizing things differently.

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

#529

Post by cryptonector » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:45 PM UTC

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…

There is a tension between prescriptivism and descriptivism, and it has to do with the rate at which the language evolves. Prescriptivism resists language evolution. Decriptivism allows the language to evolve as fast as people wish to evolve it.

Some rate of language change has to be accepted, but it needn't be as fast as if we rejected all prescriptivism.

We each prescribe or refuse to prescribe language rules as we see fit, and thus the language evolves at some natural rate.

We do need some grammar/spelling pedantry.

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

#530

Post by cogitoergofutuo » Sat, May 06, 2023, 7:46 PM UTC

hoosieree wrote: post #349

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.

Surely you mean AT Machine?

I’m a big fan of AT-ATs but I like AT-STs as well.