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

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

#571

Post by denton-scratch » Sat, May 06, 2023, 8:26 PM UTC

slily wrote: post #502

denton-scratch wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I apologise; I routinely discount anything that is in a language that I can't read, and isn't available in translation, which means an awful lot of stuff from the far-east.

I assumed doctors everywhere had built an informal consensus to use English, with terminology derived from classical greek; rather as pilots and air-traffic controllers all use English.

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

#572

Post by kelnos » Sat, May 06, 2023, 8:26 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #523

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…

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!).

This part of the editor's process bothered me, too. Overall I agree with his premise and have no problem with what he's doing. In fact, I think he is improving Wikipedia with his edits.

But changing quotations seems like a step too far. I think his practice of changing a quotation to a paraphrasing (where it doesn't really matter if the article includes a quotation or not) is fine (if a little obsessive). But actually changing quotations feels wrong to me.

I do agree with his assessment that including people's grammatical/spelling mistakes in a quotation detracts from what the person said, but I don't think the correct move is to change the quotation to something the person didn't actually say. At most, the "offending" part of the quotation should be removed and replaced with correct usage inside square brackets to indicate the changed/added part was not part of the original quotation. But overall I think he should just leave these instances alone.

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

I think you are in a way proving the editor's point, though? Purposefully chosen or not (I did chuckle a little), that sentence is garbage, and if I were to read that in something without knowing or realizing it was a joke, I would take your words less seriously. I would think, if you can't even use language properly, and need to "inflate" your words, maybe your ideas are overinflated too.

On a different note, I don't think we should care about people's "autonomy" when we're talking about a resource like Wikipedia. "Letting people write whatever and however they want" is not a positive trait in an encyclopedia.

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

#573

Post by School-Cotton » Sat, May 06, 2023, 8:28 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #354

crazygringo wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's simply wrong That makes as much sense as saying that "ne... pas" in French is a double negative and therefore "simply wrong" to use as a straight negative. No -- language isn't math, and English and other languages are chock-full of inconsistencies and seemingly "illogical" things. Language ultimately rests on convention , on real life usage -- not logic. Arguing that a common usage is illogical is fighting ag…

"ne... pas" in French is nothing more nor less than the correct way of formulating certain kinds of statements containing a negative. If you left out either of "ne" or "pas" in such a construction, people would either laugh, or assume you were some kind of primitive language generator. It's absurd that English speakers are so tolerant of incorrect usage. It's partly the pedagogic principle that "All shall have prizes…

> If you left out either of "ne" or "pas" in such a construction, people would either laugh, or assume you were some kind of primitive language generator.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Please learn French before spouting off so confidently about it.

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

#574

Post by caconym_ » Sat, May 06, 2023, 8:29 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…

A "systematic" change in the meaning of a word or phrase means that someone used it wrong once and enough people followed them in their wrongness that it became the norm. It's reasonable to say that once a new meaning has been taken up by the majority in this way it's not wrong anymore, but there is also a broad continuum between old usages and majority uptake of new usages where some users of the language in question may reasonably object to the latter.

For instance, I was once CC'd on an email thread at work where a senior leader made an obvious typo in reference to some Thing and everybody else on the thread blindly parroted it. This "alternate" usage was established and used systematically in the local context, but it led to a significant decline in general clarity and interpretability, and it was also not durable beyond the context of that thread. It was a mistake, simple as that.

"Comprised of" is probably past the threshold at this point, much like "rate of speed" and "how looks like" and so on and so forth. But—and I know this is shocking to some people—"correct" use of language does have significant advantages for communicating clearly, especially in writing. Prescriptivism and descriptivism both have their adherents because neither is right or wrong in the naive absolutist sense—balance is key.

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

#575

Post by epgui » Sat, May 06, 2023, 8:29 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #568

epgui wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't possibly know whether or not I understood them.

I think I understood them, but I can never be sure, because in order to understand something with improper grammar, you usually need to "fill in the gaps" with the most reasonable assumptions possible, and those don't necessarily line up with your interlocutor's beliefs or intentions.

Putting words in other people's mouths is often required to "lubricate communication along", but it should be done as minimally as possible if the goal is for people to understand each other.

See Grice's cooperative principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle

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

#576

Post by School-Cotton » Sat, May 06, 2023, 8:30 PM UTC

arrowsmith wrote: post #429

denton-scratch wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"ne... pas" in French is nothing more nor less than the correct way of formulating certain kinds of statements containing a negative. If you left out either of "ne" or "pas" in such a construction, people would either laugh, or assume you were some kind of primitive language generator. It's absurd that English speakers are so tolerant of incorrect usage. It's partly the pedagogic principle that "All shall have prizes…

> If you left out either of "ne" or "pas" in such a construction, people would either laugh, or assume you were some kind of primitive language generator. Isn't it common to drop the "ne" in colloquial speech?

“Common” is an understatement. It’s practically universal. You will sound weird if you systematically include “ne”, like you learned to speak by reading books and have never communicated with a real person.

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

#577

Post by soraminazuki » Sat, May 06, 2023, 8:31 PM UTC

samirillian wrote: post #217

soraminazuki wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > It's completely unnecessary. There are many other ways to say what the writer means by "comprised of". It adds nothing to the language. I wonder if the editor read "1984" and straight up copied its ideas. In the novel, the totalitarian state of Oceania uses that exact same justification to promote the use of the Newspeak language: > After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of…

I don't agree with your 1984 analogy at all. A better source might be George Orwell's actual, explicit opinions on politics and the English language: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... Orwell certainly did not take an "anything goes" approach to language, which is essentially what you and others argue for, in the mistaken belief that you're somehow striking a blow at totalitarianism. From…

> your position is much closer to the Newspeak ethos

I sure haven't stated "my position" in any of my previous comments. But assuming it refers to common english, I'm reminded of another "1984" concept: doublethink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Compare this:

> common english is Newspeak

with this:

> War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength

The similarity is uncanny.

> A better source might be

... the actual book being discussed?

> https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

Exactly which part of Orwell's opinion did you find relevant to this discussion and how does it relate to yours? This is missing from your comment.

> which is essentially what you and others argue for,

Please don't put words in my or anyone else's mouth to make your point. It's extremely disrespectful.

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

#578

Post by alasdair_ » Sat, May 06, 2023, 8:32 PM UTC

xdennis wrote: post #556

alasdair_ wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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"

Sorry, but what is the difference? "To utilize" is literally defined as "to use".

"utilize" - the teacher wasn't able to use the computers for the intended purpose of teaching the children.

"use" - the teacher was unable to operate the computer at all (maybe they couldn't use the mouse, for example).

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

#579

Post by two_handfuls » Sat, May 06, 2023, 8:34 PM UTC

ghayes wrote: post #125

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…

> > It’s illogical for a word to mean two opposite things. Auto-antonyms are actually quite common in English. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym

Parent is still correct about it being illogical though.

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

#580

Post by UncleMeat » Sat, May 06, 2023, 8:35 PM UTC

panxyh wrote: post #554

UncleMeat wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Yeah no, they are not total nonsense.

That's my point. If you just look at phrases as meaning the sum of their words then this phrase makes no sense. But it is a phrase that has an understood meaning.