Slashdot Mirror
One Man's Quest To Rid Wikipedia of Exactly One Grammatical Mistake
An anonymous reader writes with this Fascinating profile of one particular Wikipedia editor Giraffedata (a 51-year-old software engineer named Bryan Henderson), who has spent the last seven years correcting only the incorrect use of "comprised of" on Wikipedia. Using a code to crawl for uses of "comprised of" throughout all of Wiki's articles, he'll then go in and manually correct them (for example, using "consists of" or "composed of") and has made over 47,000 edits to date.
Comprised of the ability to withstand the urge of doing anything else but this.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
he'll then go in and manually corrects them
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
This twitter account is similar: Correcting users on Twitter who type "sneak peak" with "sneak peek", we have "Stealth Mountain". https://twitter.com/stealthmountain
Not sure either of these qualify as 'news', but what the hell, it's a slow news day anyways.
Next up: The Wget Guy manually downloads a "hand-tailored" copy of wikipedia and sells it for living on DVDs.
Oh wait.
No. All of his edits have already been reverted by crazy Wikipedia editors.
Using a code to crawl for uses of "comprised of" throughout all of Wiki's articles
Wikipedia is not "Wiki." Wikipedia is a wiki. There are many wikis in the world, and they are not all Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the publication, and wiki is the medium. "All of Wiki's articles" is like saying "All of Newspaper's articles."
Maybe I can get away with this offtopic pedantic comment since this whole article is about a guy spending years trying to fix small errors. :)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
It's a common enough idiom.
There are many common idioms that are used incorrectly in conversation or casual writing. But that doesn't mean they should be used in formal writing, such as an encyclopedia.
Yes, very crazy of him to be focused on the cause of his own crazy rather than yours!
Languages come in two types: Living and Dead. Dead languages have solid grammatical rules that must be obeyed. Living languages are in flux, constantly evolving. What this person did is NO different than a British person going through all of Wikipedia and replacing the word Humor with Humour or Favorite with Favourite.
Words and Grammar CHANGE. Enough people use the word AINT, it gets imported into the language.
Why? Because living languages are comprised of words and phrases that take their meaning from the common usage, not from a book. If people understand a meaning, that is the meaning.
There is no language police outlawing people, no punishment - except for public disapproval and opinion - for misuse. This guy is not the public and has no right to disapprove of how the public uses the language.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Yep. I work in patents, where a small incorrect use of grammar or terms of art can mean losing millions of dollars. The classic case in point:
Patent A:
"A vehicle comprising 3 wheels and a motor."
Patent B:
"A vehicle consisting of 3 wheels and a motor."
Assuming it is 1700 or something and no prior-art exists,
Patent A can go on to claim 4-wheeled motorized vehicles (since a 4-wheeled vehicle does after all have 3 wheels), 3-wheeled vehicles with shark fins, whatever. "Comprising" is open-end and interpreted as "it has at least this," or as you say, "including."
Patent B is strictly limited to 3 wheels and a motor, no more and no less. If a competitor uses 4 wheels, or adds shark fins, or two motors, then it isn't covered by the patent. "Consisting of" is a closed phrase interpreted as "having exactly."
The incorrect grammar "comprised of" would be an ambiguity, and as such, interpreted in the strictest way -- limiting as in Patent B.
It may seem worrisome that scientists and engineers of all people -- some of the absolute worst butchers of language and grammar out there! -- are the ones who become patent agents or patent attorneys, but all-in-all, the ones who do so tend to be some of the smartest folks I've met. You need to be well-rounded to do the job.
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
Now that this is publicly known you can be sure there will be trolls who will mess with the guy.
This guy's my hero - misuse of "comprised" is a pet peeve of mine.
Despite sounding vaguely similar to "composed", it's not a synonym. Comprised is a near-synonym for included, but implies totality. "The band comprised a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer" means that was the entirety of the band. Since so few people actually understand this, I tend to avoid the word.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It's a common enough idiom.
There are many common idioms that are used incorrectly in conversation or casual writing. But that doesn't mean they should be used in formal writing, such as an encyclopedia.
Well met, friend, for thou speakst great sooth! Many people have I encountered who are such dullards as to employ incorrectly the English tongue. 'Tis tragedy of the vtmost that the youth of our times know not how the language should properly speak itself. A gay fellow would I be were my fellow man to renew his acquaintance with the King's English.
Alas! but I must forsake thy gentle companie, for mine friends await me in a local hostelrie, and so must I away! Parting is such sweet sorry. Anon, good sir, anon!
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
That's funny, because every online dictionary I consulted said that it was grammatically correct to use "comprise" as a synonym for "compose." In fact Merriam Webster has this to say:
Sense 3 : compose, constitute
Usage Discussion of COMPRISE
Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Global search: "utilize"
Replace with: "use"
Global search: "baited breath"
Replace with: "bated breath"
I could do this ALL day, man.
-Styopa
This Sunday, Sunday, Sunday... Let's Get Rrrrready to Rrrrrumble ... It's a Code Throwdown
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
And I will join your allied fight against Grammar National Socialism by conducting a concurrent invasion of the beaches of literature and retaking ground from the fascists who mistakenly think that it is grammatically incorrect to begin sentences with conjunctions. And we will win this fight!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I think I will go on a quest to get rid of as many occurances of "X times LESS than ..." as possible.
what happens when oxford announces that "comprised of" now also means "made up of" ?
They already have.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
That says it is being used more often, not that it is grammatically correct. Languages naturally change over time, and this is probably a good example of it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I applaud this man's efforts. Copy editing and proper English have gone down the tubes in writing today. It's become so bad that even major news outlets are publishing egregious errors in headlines and teasers, as well as in article body content, daily and at an alarming rate. Sad to see that there is no higher standard anymore and everyone writing like a 14-year old, C-level English student.
Oh good, I should be safe on that one. I use "condiment" in place of both of those.
Knowledge Brings Fear
Sir, that is uncouth, uncivilized and incorrect.
There are legitimate grammar and usage debates, with cogent arguments on either side. But the Oxford Comma is the One True Way. The best argument I've ever heard against it is, "Well, it saves a few drops of ink on the printed page." Anti-Oxford Comma heathens should be drawn, quartered, and burned at the stake for befouling the language.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
"It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word."
-- Andrew Jackson
Required reading for internet skeptics
No, it's sort of the inverse of composed:
* My team comprises X, Y, and Z
* My team that is composed of X, Y, and Z (or, awkwardly, X, Y, and Z compose my team).
If it were UML, the arrow would go the other way.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The best argument I've ever heard against it is, "Well, it saves a few drops of ink on the printed page."
And yet you place the period inside the quotation marks. Foolish American!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
It's a pet peeve of mine as well, but it's a small pet.
I don't want it to affect my holy war on the criminal misuse of the apostrophe.