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

541–550 of 735 posts

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

#541

Post by tinideiznaimnou »

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.

It's just data.

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

#542

Post by Aerbil313 »

cryptonector wrote: post #529
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…

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…

> Prescriptivism resists language evolution. Decriptivism allows the language to evolve as fast as people wish to evolve it.

This is nonsense. Do you really believe language is subject to intentional human control?

(Of course if a dictator comes and kills half a million people for things including changing language like it happened in my country, then it is, but this is a very rare exception.)

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

#543

Post by alch- »

npteljes wrote: post #519
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 agree with you. Frankly, utilize instead of use just sounds finicking. As an engineer, I'd use it in a corporate powerpoint that I make to impress management. These kind of things have no place in Wikipedia.

> I'd use it

I think you mean "leverage".

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

#544

Post by philwelch »

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…

u are looking at this from the pov of a linguist, not an editor...u might think this comment im writing isnt "systematically wrong" or whatever but u wouldn't write a wikipedia article this way

seriously tho if descriptivists had the courage of their convictions they would just stop capitalizing, there's no reason to

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

#545

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

JW_00000 wrote: post #450
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…

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 ency…

I only ever thought biweekly was synonymous with fortnightly

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

#546

Post by choppaface »

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.

1. Create a Wikipedia page explaining the confusion here (borrowing from author’s essay). But also ratify the “incorrect” as “not considered harmful and is permissible on wikipedia”

2. Encourage the author to do something that effects more positive sentiment with their time, even if it’s “wrong.” It could be this behavior is compulsive and author has problems controlling it. At least try to steer that energy, and just do not engage in fighting it.

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

#547

Post by robocat »

Izkata wrote: post #428
robswc wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can get behind the "notlight" but "notright"... feels like something my brain would never get used to haha.

Because based on the words it's composed of, it's different from "left" - it would include "forward" and "backward". Similarly for "notlight" implying including twilight, which "dark" does not.

> twilight

Perhaps that is lightandnotlight. We almost have notlight in English: unlit. An unlit room feels twilighty to me.

> notright

Left in Esperanto: maldekstra

I can’t imagine why a language designer would choose “mal” as the prefix for “not”. In English and Spanish (two common languages), mal has some bad connotations (malodour, malady, malfeasance, malo, malformed). Let’s try the opposite: “not left” is definitely something different from “right” - urrrgggh. “Do not go left” doesn’t mean to go right.

However it looks like Esperanto also has “liva”. Turnu liven tuj post la angulo ~= Turn left immediately after the corner.

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

#548

Post by appletrotter »

ghaff wrote: post #521
jaggederest wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Someone has already pointed out that this attitude can be described as a “prescriptivist” attitude.

A prescriptivist will say that a term is “correct,” a descriptivist will say a term is “commonly accepted.”

Personally, this is what I say to prescriptivists: if they want a language with legally defined rules - they should learn French.

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

#550

Post by kaetemi »

lolinder wrote: post #278
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"…

> It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong. Language changes. Words frequently develop the opposite meaning of what they originally had—opposites seem to be semantically closer and more prone to switching than completely unrelated words. When a word changes meaning, it is not wrong to use it in the new way, and at some point it even becomes wrong to use it in the original way: if you used "terrifi…

Wait until it drifts off further into "it is compromised of". (You can Google that, and you'll find it used in papers already.)
Post reply on HN