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

581–590 of 735 posts

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

#581

Post by crazygringo »

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…

> Wikipedia is nothing but a superminority

We're talking about totally different minorities here.

Yes, a tiny proportion of Wikipedia users create a vast portion of the content. But that doesn't mean their views are minority views.

If those, say, 1% of users who are contributors, still map roughly to the same distribution of gender, race, nationality, political leanings, etc. as the group of all users, then there's no superminority issue. If they set policy according to their own discussion and voting, we wouldn't expect that to be substantially different from a larger group.

The problem is with superminority views -- if you asked 100 randomly selected users of Wikipedia whether all instances of "is comprised of" should be replaced with "comprises", probably only a tiny minority would agree. This is a superminority viewpoint, which is the whole reason why this story is generating so much discussion.

A superminority viewpoint imposing its beliefs is a problem. While a small group of editors that is merely numerically a "superminority" is in no way a problem, unless they turn out to be substantially unrepresentative of the larger population in their views.

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

#582

Post by wolverine876 »

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 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.

Maybe the pathology is this kind of conservativism. I find lack of change - due to knee-jerk resistance and corrupt vested interest - causes far more problems than anything.

There is so much we could do - easy low-hanging fruit - where the only obstacle is (this kind of) conservativism.

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

#583

Post by School-Cotton »

epgui wrote: post #575
School-Cotton wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 commu…

Absolutely nonsensical bullshit. Everyone reading this knows you perfectly understood “were” to mean “we’re” here. Engaging in the fictional universe where you didn’t is a waste of time.

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

#584

Post by wolverine876 »

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…

> I do reluctantly conform to AP style in certain contexts

Why AP style - written specifically for journalists - instead of all the other styles such as APA, Chicago, etc. etc.?

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

#585

Post by itronitron »

theturtletalks wrote: post #561
Meekro wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The small group doesn't have to be thoughtful (and they often aren't), they just need to be committed.

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

#586

Post by Izkata »

robocat wrote: post #547
Izkata wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 defin…

> 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).

Well, there's also the Latin word "sinister" which has a very different meaning in English... Kinda seems like a common theme.

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

#587

Post by denton-scratch »

skupig wrote: post #441
denton-scratch wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People can horribly misuse the phrase "comprised of". I think that phrase is always incorrect. I suspect the problem is that people aren't used to words that take a list as their direct argument, like "comprise". Wikipedia leans heavily to descriptivism (as do nearly all lexicons, these days). So there's no incorrect usage; there's only usage that jars, for some people. I don't go around telling people they're igno…

Correct according to whom? The language you speak is the result of thousands of years of casual communication by billions of human beings. Precriptivism of a living natural language is hubris. What seems like perfect English to you is not perfect to everyone.

> The language you speak is the result of thousands of years of casual communication by billions of human beings.

Disagree. The language I speak didn't exist 800 years ago. The Anglo-saxons wouldn't have understood me, and I wouldn't have understood them.

And there were barely a billion human beings just 800 years ago - forget about thousands of years.

I didn't mention "prescriptivism", although it's obviously the opposite of descriptivism.

I thiink you mistake "prescriptivism" for a sort of law-making,like grammar-nazis. I mean something more like a general acceptance that words do have particular meanings, and that it's possible to be wrong about the meaning or use of a word.

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

#588

Post by epgui »

School-Cotton wrote: post #583
epgui wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 commu…

Absolutely nonsensical bullshit. Everyone reading this knows you perfectly understood “were” to mean “we’re” here. Engaging in the fictional universe where you didn’t is a waste of time.

It's not bullshit, it's what explains a large class of misunderstandings.

What's bullshit is people who think they know what other people think.

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

#589

Post by SoftTalker »

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.

Wait until AIs start making changes. Human editors won't be able to keep up.
Post reply on HN