Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Grammar Vigilante' Secretly Corrects Bristol Street Signs (irishtimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the silent-guardian dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: A self-confessed "grammar vigilante" has been secretly correcting bad punctuation on street signs and shop fronts in Bristol for more than a decade. The anonymous crusader carries out his work in the dead of night using the "Apostrophiser" -- a long-handled tool he created to reach the highest signs. The man, who wishes to remain anonymous, told the BBC that correcting rogue apostrophes is his speciality.

4 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Similar sign-fixer in Los Angeles by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A few years ago a local artist improved a confusing L.A. freeway sign, making an interstate number shield in the process:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...

    https://www.good.is/articles/t...

    http://gizmodo.com/how-one-fed...

    One down, 9,999 to go...

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Similar sign-fixer in Los Angeles by MTalisman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have often wanted to change the traffic sign at the exit of the George Washington Bridge in NYC onto the Harlem River Drive from
      Use Both Lanes
      to
      Use Either Lane

  2. Wrong Criminal by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The real criminals here are the sign makers. People who's job is written communication are either unable or unwilling to see basic, simple mistakes.
    None of these incorrect signs should exist.

    Moral of the story: just because you're paying someone, doesn't mean they are competent at their job.

  3. Re:Vigilante? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    on the internet, they're called "Grammar Nazis". Maybe people who correct bad grammar aren't so bad after all...

    There used to be a site called Portland Pattern Repository at c2.com that was a wiki and discussion board for software-engineering-related topics. There was nothing really like it for general software engineering topics and debates. It wasn't a help-desk like StackOverflow, but up at the philosophical level. (It's messy, but arguably this accurately mirrors the different viewpoints and lack of formal research in SE.)

    It was the very first wiki, invented by Ward Cunningham, who coined the term "wiki" for a kind of web collaboration software resembling Apple Hypercard. ("Wiki" is based on a Hawaiian word for "quick".)

    Anyhow, a grammar-and-spelling-correcting "grammar vandal" (GV) ended up killing the wiki, which is set to read-only mode for now.

    To save it, volunteers had built scripts to try to back out GV's changes, but GV was highly persistent and kept a step ahead of the clean-up scripts, flooding it with garbage at times. GV was one determined SOB.

    Part of the problem was that some of the corrections were questionable/debatable in nature and potentially changed the interpretation different from what an author had intended (some content was signed). GV argued this was a small price to pay for improving overall grammar and spelling, which most disagreed with. Negotiations for a compromise broke down; GV wanted full editing control.

    The wiki is still alive in read-only mode, but Ward Cunningham decided to experiment with a "federated wiki" concept whereby different participants can keep a version of how they wanted the content to look and more control over who can change one's own copy. Interesting idea in theory, but so far it's failed to catch on the way the original did. It makes things too fractured for users and readers. And, you pretty much have to manage your own federated-wiki-server to participate.

    GV believed "my way or no way" and sank the entire ship. Jerk!

    --
    Table-ized A.I.