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

561–570 of 735 posts

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

#561

Post by theturtletalks »

Meekro wrote: post #482
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…

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

I prefer this one:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

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

#562

Post by denton-scratch »

hashmush wrote: post #457
denton-scratch wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because they used dots Written language should be pronounceable - it's a written rendition of a spoken language. Even math formulae are pronounceable. How are you supposed to pronounce “français.e.s”?

Not really the main point of my comment, but okay. Firstly, mapping symbols to sound is arbitrary and based on convention. I don't speak French, but I wouldn't say français.e.s is that much worse than français(e)s , pronunciation-wise. But I do agree that -.e.s is a bit odd. Kinda like w/ and w/o in English. I mean, seriously, why isn't it w. and w.o. like any other abbreviation.

I think it's more like "s/he". It's a typographical notation with no common understanding of how it's supposed to be pronounced.

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

#564

Post by School-Cotton »

appletrotter wrote: post #548
ghaff wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The rules of French are not really legally defined; that’s a common misconception. Yeah, there is a state-funded cultural organization in France called the Académie française that claims that regulating the language is part of its mandate, but its “decisions” have no legal effect whatsoever and are widely ignored, even by the government and education system.

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

#565

Post by kaetemi »

mmcnl wrote: post #221
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"…

What is "WP"?

Wifi Port.

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

#566

Post by pklausler »

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…

He's not correcting the usage of people chatting on street corners here. He's fixing bad usage in an encyclopedia.

Good usage improves clarity. This is why editors have style guides.

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

#567

Post by kelnos »

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.

OP discusses this; the language has not really evolved. Certainly there are some dictionaries that acknowledge the newer confusing usage, but always as an alternate.

Also consider the "why": does this phrase pop up more and more often due to misunderstandings and copy/paste? Or is it because people actually want to change the meaning of the phrase and are doing it consciously? I don't see any evidence of the latter.

Language is important. It's the foundation of communication. I think it's noble to push against inadvertent usage changes that make the language more ambiguous.

Put another way: sure, language evolves as people use it differently. But why is it any more valid to push the language toward using "comprised of" in this new way, than it is to push the language to avoid it?

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

#568

Post by School-Cotton »

epgui wrote: post #525
tayo42 wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we were speaking out loud you could figure it out

And yet, we're not speaking out loud.

But you did understand him. You’re pretending you didn’t because if that were true it’d reinforce your point, but it’s not in fact true.

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

#569

Post by rvba »

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…

The minority wants you to think that the website wouldnt work without them.

Reality is that their rules are only for you. They dont judge their own edits with same standards. If edits were anonymized tons od admins would get banned.

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

#570

Post by epgui »

pc86 wrote: post #528
epgui wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that's true only when both people have a certain degree of sophistication, but in the vast majority of cases involving laypeople, basic theory (including semantics / working definitions for basic concepts) and reading comprehension skills are probably limiting factors.
Post reply on HN