33 ms·

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

• PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  This is one of the bad things about Wikipedia, letting people with pet peeves or obsessions having so much editorial control. Ultimately it's a small price to pay though.
  • emodendroket 3y ago
    Probably more insidious that shills working for whatever bogeyman you'd find most concerning can pull all the same levers.
• DangitBobby 3y ago
  Is there a way to prevent people from doing petty and unnecessary vandalism to articles you've authored or are you pretty much at their mercy?
  • crote 3y ago
    You can't, Wikipedia is pretty much entirely pedantry at this point. To give an example: a while back a semi-notable object in my local area burned down. It has a short Wikipedia page of a few hundred words, but it is not something anyone would actually care about. At 02:00AM (in the middle of the night) I added this to its Wikipedia page, citing a Tweet from the official fire department. Five minutes later the entire addition was removed, simply stating that "Twitter is not an acceptable source". Mind you, this is not an official policy: it is usually not allowed, but there are exceptions for instances like this. It was added back with less detail later on by a different user, who didn't even bother to cite any sources. So yeah, don't bother trying to contribute to Wikipedia, unless you are willing to fight for every single edit.
    • NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      If the Tweet that you cited was indeed from the official account of the local fire department, then the editor who reverted you was wrong. Twitter accounts are mostly unreliable sources, except when they are reliable: that is, when an official or verified account gives information about themselves. See WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS. The same goes for any such social media platform: YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, whatever. In fact, there are many TV news outlets who have official YouTube channels -- why wouldn't these be acceptable as reliable sources, just like a newspaper or a live TV broadcast?
      • crote 3y ago
        Yeah, but are you willing to fight a "power user" over some trivial edit like this? I, for one, have better things to do with my time.
    • bombcar 3y ago
      It is absolutely pointless to bother contributing to Wikipedia. Either it’s so notable someone else will do it, or you’ll get steamrolled by some out of control editor.
• newswasboring 3y ago
  > Not everyone agrees "comprised of" is wrong, but no one finds it better than the alternatives. Brilliant way to make a decision in a community. I wish more discussions had room for such thought patterns.
• fwlr 3y ago
  “Languages change over time” is often deployed as an argument against pedantry. I believe pedantry is a useful force (akin to friction) and it plays a necessary role in the change of language over time. A language change has proven its worth if it can spread faster than pedantry can resist it.
• malwarebytess 3y ago
  This kind of tyrannical obsession over minutiae, the sheer spectacle and narcissism, leaves me feeling ill.
• vivegi 3y ago
  It is ironic that The New York Time Manual of Style and Usage [1] cited by the article as one of the authoritative sources often doesn't follow its own style guide. A Google search for "comprised of" in nytimes.com [2] gives around 4600+ results. A cursory glance at the first page of search results and the snippet text in the results all look fine. I guess, we could say, much ado about nothing. [1]: Siegal, Allan (1999). The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. Three Rivers Press. p. 80. [2]: Google search query for site:nytimes.com containing "comprised of". URL: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22comprised+of%22+site%3Anytimes.com https://www.google.com/search?q=%22comprised+of%22+site%3Any...
  • medler 3y ago
    NYT notoriously makes a ton of errors in grammar and usage. The “NYTtypos” Twitter account is amusing reading if you’re into that sort of thing. https://twitter.com/nyttypos https://twitter.com/nyttypos
• b800h 3y ago
  This reminds me of that Dutch guy who has managed to father more than 500 children by sperm donation. Unhealthy and obsessive. A very small part of me wants to create a bot which reverses those edits, and then changes his own articles to include the term.
• MagicMoonlight 3y ago
  Just wants a way to pad his score
• bandyaboot 3y ago
  > It's illogical for a word to mean two opposite things. Maybe he can tackle “literally” once he is finished with “comprise”.
  • albert_e 3y ago
    That's oversight
  • devnullbrain 3y ago
    The acceptance of 'literally' to mean 'not literally' means English now has no simple, consistent way to say something is literally literal. At least linguistics nerds are happy though!
  • fknorangesite 3y ago
    The use of "literally" as an intensifier goes back centuries. I'm not sure why people act as if it's some kind of new development.
    • bandyaboot 3y ago
      I don’t doubt you’re right, but that doesn’t make it logical. I’m curious how common this sort of thing is in other languages—words or phrases taking on the opposite meaning of their literal definition. “I could care less” is an example of a phrase that’s commonly used in English. Perhaps it’s debatable whether that one has achieved acceptance or not.
      • fknorangesite 3y ago
        > but that doesn’t make it logical. Natural languages aren't logical. Pretending or wishing otherwise is a fool's errand, and I guarantee there are many words and phrases you use all the time without thinking that are entirely illogical, but still make sense. > words or phrases taking on the opposite meaning of their literal definition The word you're looking for is "auto-antonym". Very common. > “I could care less” ... Perhaps it’s debatable whether that one has achieved acceptance or not. It has; the variance between could/couldn't is mainly regional. And it's an example of how phrases or idioms have independent meaning outside of the individual words.[1] Another good example is something like the [North American] "How are you?" - it's a greeting, not (usually) a literal question about how someone is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phraseme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phraseme
• jl6 3y ago
  Wow, there’s a lot of unjustified negativity in this thread. The whole encyclopedia (and a whole bunch of the wider world of computing) is built out of this kind of hyper-focused nerding over details. These changes don’t make your day worse. He’s not shoving it in our faces or claiming it’s going to save the world. We don’t know what’s going on in this editor’s life or what he “should” be doing with his time instead. Maybe simple routine work is his way of unwinding from the maddening pace and complexity of the rest of life. Good on him for feeling passionate about something and seeing it through. We should be grateful there are people willing to do this kind of mundane janitorial work.
  • SiempreViernes 3y ago
    Since there isn't agreement on this actually being janitorial work (in the sense that they are not simply enforcing the Wikipedia styleguide), this is not some completely innocent activity. No, this is in its essence very petty vandalism, an attempt to force his notion of grammar on the entirely of Wikipedia despite knowing this is forbidden. That this forcing is the intended goal is clear from their own description of the editing process, where they admit to never permanently recording articles with authors who do object to the edits. Instead they just record objectors for six months and then try sniping in the edit again in the hope that the author is not there to protect it anymore.
    • lIl-IIIl 3y ago
      In "Reaction to the project" the author links to a "semi-vandalism" charge. You can read the discussion among Wikipedia editors there if you're interested (spoiler alert - most found it valuable and nobody thought it was vandalism).
      • jmholla 3y ago
        That's by their own account. Multiple times they mention they don't do the best of caring about our tracking negative comments. They do however do the opposite. It's important to remember this is written by them and is all from their perspective.
• cookiengineer 3y ago
  This leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of our history in Germany. There was a bunch of institutes for the "Erhaltung der deutschen Sprache" which were all founded under the umbrella of a quasi-propaganda organization that officially was just a society/club. [1] They created their own "purified" dictionary with a "clean language" that was trying to find replacements for foreign words, and strengthen the nationalistic awareness with all its perks. It was so ridiculous and opinionated that they tried to even enforce the use of "Nagelindiewandschlageisen" instead of using the Swedish word hammer. They burned all their stuff in the war, but it's somewhat folklore that they were heavily involved with Goebbels and his propaganda in WW2. They got away with that during the Nuremberg trials so technically this is an accusation from my side. Culturally I think this is the opposite of what cultures should embrace. Languages will always evolve, and you cannot prevent that. As a side-note: Those were so puristic people that they even pissed off Adolf Hitler at some point, because they criticised him for using foreign words in his speeches. [1] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allgemeiner_Deutscher_Sprachverein https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allgemeiner_Deutscher_Sprach...
  • hansworst 3y ago
    I guess these were the only people to deserve the term “grammar nazi” then
  • za3faran 3y ago
    Just because there was an incident involving an extremist group, does not make the whole thing wrong or incorrect. As a counter example, High Arabic has been meticulously preserved, and Arab speakers take pride in that fact, regardless of the many spoken dialects that exist.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • adjav 3y ago
      That's like saying Classical Latin has been meticulously preserved. Technically true, but entirely irrelevant.
• xupybd 3y ago
  Why would someone invest so much energy removing something that is common as mud, and universally understood?
  • bruce343434 3y ago
    I think the actual article/essay answers that question pretty well...
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• goodcanadian 3y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with the pedantry, but I'll leave that to the side and ask: Why change "comprised of" to "consists of" (for example) rather than changing it to "comprises"? If you are so hung up on the usage of that word, why not use it in the way you think is correct rather than trying to excise it from Wikipedia?
• kurthr 3y ago
  I hope he never has to read a US patent where "comprised of" is almost a required usage not only in the spec, but in the claims! It's expected by the examiners and demanded by patent lawyers as a term of art as interpreted by an appellate court. The term "comprises" and/or "comprised of" has a specific usage in patents. Comprising means that at least all of the listed elements must exist, but other elements that are not mentioned in the claim may also be present. This in turn allows for dependent claims. The alternative term is "consists" and/or "consists of", which means that only the listed elements may be present. It is used almost exclusively when claiming chemical or molecular formulas.
  • bombcar 3y ago
    I dare say you could find some of those 90k changes are to patent wording on Wikipedia.
    • kurthr 3y ago
      It's weird I suppose, but in anything other than a very formal (legal, medical, scientific, education, marketing?!?) contexts I find correcting another fluent speaker's english to be (especially colloquialisms, grammar, and word choice) just wrong. You can add context to it, but not really correct. Unless they're a dear friend, and they knew what they meant to say better than you. A person is expressing their feeling/opinion/interpretation in their vernacular. Yes, it is probably stream of consciousness, but that is exactly what it is, and just changing one word or phrase doesn't help make it clear. I suppose wikipedia is edumacational so I guess I understand, but unless he's really reading all of the surrounding context of 90k pages (unlikely) then he certainly risks making embarrassing errors.
• melagonster 3y ago
  In the context of taxonomy, the term "comprise" is commonly used in research articles, while "constitute" is not appropriate to describe the relationship between phyla and classes. To convey the intended meaning that phyla exclusively contain the classes mentioned, the phrase "phyla are comprised of classes" is unambiguous. This formulation signifies that the phyla encompass and solely consist of the mentioned classes. Referring to the relationship as "a phylum comprises classes" simply denotes that these classes are included within the phylum. By adhering to these distinctions, the paragraph conveys a more technical and professional tone.
• KineticLensman 3y ago
  If you look after the molehills, the mountains will take care of themselves.
• Pazzaz 3y ago
  As a non-native English speaker, I appreciate pedantic editors like this one a lot. When I read Wikipedia, I want the text to be easy to understand and consistent with the rest of Wikipedia and when I edit, I want people to improve what I wrote. I wish everything I wrote had a copy-editor as pedantic as Wikipedia power users. Some people are complaining about overly zealous editors who delete a lot of and as an Inclusionist [1] I understand the sentiment. I think deleting information from Wikipedia is pretty bad. But being pedantic about English is not deleting information, it's improving the transmission of information. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism
  • relaxing 3y ago
    As a native English speaker let me assure you this user has done nothing for the understandability or consistency of the text.
    • totalZero 3y ago
      I don't agree with you. Comprise is a directional word, similar in that sense to surjective. If someone were to write injective when they mean surjective, I might be able to correctly interpret the intended meaning based on context, but that doesn't make the language consistent and it serves as a hurdle to understanding the text.
• irthomasthomas 3y ago
  Now please do same for "factoid". The recent inversion of the definition of factoid is a much bigger problem. The term originates from medical science and means "a FALSE fact that is believed to be true after appearing in print". But some journalists miss understood it to mean "a small, but TRUE fact." Their new definition was false, but is now believed to be true after appearing in print. So, the modern definition of factoid is, itself, a factoid. Making this, er, fact well known will be useful to future historians, who, when they encounter the word in early 2nd millennium texts, are going to have to puzzle over whether or not the factoid mentioned is actually meant to be true, or false. Edit, btw, the suffix "oid" means "resembling", so, a factoid is something resembling a fact. Therefore, factoid contains its own definition; and we still butchered it.
  • in_being_the 3y ago
    A true fact is as capable of "resembling a fact" as a false one.
  • crazygringo 3y ago
    You're incorrect about the origin. According to Merriam-Webster [1]: > We can thank Norman Mailer for factoid: he used the word in his 1973 book Marilyn (about Marilyn Monroe), and he is believed to be the coiner of the word. But who cares? A word totally invented just five short decades ago quickly morphed, as MW continues: > The word has since evolved so that now it most often refers to things that decidedly are facts, just not ones that are significant. Why should Norman Mailer's made-up definition get precedence over the people who actually use it? Just because you coin something doesn't mean you own it. I don't think future historians are going to be confused. Never in my life have I encountered the word "factoid" used in Mailer's sense, until reading your comment. The new definition has long since taken over, long live fun little facts — long live factoids! [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid
  • srcreigh 3y ago
    “Fact” related words have always had a divergence. Latin factum verb means to do. Various words fall on the objective aspect of action (fact, factual) while others fall on the more subjective “artificial” aspect (factitious, factoid) The family of the word “act” has similar divergence from similar Latin word actus
• gbromios 3y ago
  I am personally a rabid descriptivist, but I still find myself somehow sympathetic to this editor's cause. Much like "literally", losing the "official" meaning of "comprise" would leave us (i.e. English speakers) without a word which uniquely captures that meaning. People will use words however however they will, and that's their absolute right. And without pretending that the aforementioned unique quality should (or even could) justify enforcing one meaning over the other in the English language at large, I think that it's fine to have different standards for different contexts, and that Wikipedia is a context whose need for precision and clarity justifies some pedantry. If this guy's willing to put in the legwork, more power to him.
  • mypornaccount 3y ago
    Literally can still literally mean literally.
• Gimpei 3y ago
  Could somebody do the same for “nonplussed”? We have now given that poor poor word two opposite meanings. Currently, I have no idea what somebody means when they say they’re nonplussed.
  • crazygringo 3y ago
    I will say that word is always confusing, perhaps the #1 example. Because with other classic examples, such as the verb "to table" meaning the opposite thing in the US and UK, you can at least always figure it out from context (if not from the accent, ha). And we know that "inflammable" is never used to mean fireproof. But the two opposite meanings of "nonplussed", there's very often zero contextual indication as to which meaning is intended. And both meanings are used frequently, so it's in this total unresolved limbo state. For me, it's the one word I won't use at all, precisely for this reason. There's simply no way to be properly understood.
  • devnullbrain 3y ago
    Worse evolving opposite meanings is a real problem. Another example that became popular this century is 'entitled'. Now it means both 'being entitled to something' and 'wrongly thinking you're entitled to something'. So now a word we don't have a simple alternative for is less useful because it has become ambiguous. It also retroactively makes past uses ambiguous. This has a real cost to communication and the remedy is to enforce style to avoid it happening to other words.
• hota_mazi 3y ago
  Couldn't it be argued that it's totally okay to have two separate meanings for "to comprise" as a direct verb (A comprises B), and mean the opposite when used in indirect form (B is comprised of A)?
  • andrewshadura 3y ago
    The issue here is that comprise means "being composed of". So instead of "A comprises B and C" people write "A is comprised of B and C".
• kazinator 3y ago
  > It's illogical for a word to mean two opposite things. LOL, can't wait for this person to dedicate their life to fixing the Japanese wikipedia.
• denton-scratch 3y ago
  "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" that sounds more erudite, or something. I think to utilize something is to take something that is useless, and turn it into something useful. That's not the same as using the thing.
  • mmcnl 3y ago
    What is "WP"?
    • js2 3y ago
      Wikipedia
    • coding123 3y ago
      Word perfect or word press
    • ddoolin 3y ago
      WordPress. Wickedly Pernicious.
    • moritzwarhier 3y ago
      AAC. Acronyms are confusing. But some people also say AC -acronyms confuse. I thought of a byzantine WordPress site with editing history or something as well, for a moment, despite the context. Wait, WP for Wikipedia isn't even an acronym, just an abbreviation! If you read this far, sorry for wasting your time. I'm still learning :high_five:
      • denton-scratch 3y ago
        WP for "Wikipedia" is built into the site; most of the internal guidance pages can be accessed via titles such as "WP:WikiProject". [Edit] I generally don't use such acronyms without spelling the term out in full first. But spelling things out in full every time comes across as wordy and pedantic.
• ludston 3y ago
  I enjoy collecting little things like this to annoy the grammar gatekeepers. Why say "regardless" when "irregardless" means the same thing but also annoys prescriptivists? "Ironical" instead of "ironic" and "less" instead of "fewer". Now that I know, "comprised of" fits in this category, it's definitely going to be a part of the everyday lexicon.
  • pornel 3y ago
    This literally begs the question.
  • charles_f 3y ago
    You are pure entropy!
  • devnullbrain 3y ago
    The use of prescriptivists as though it was a sports team is ironic. It's actually you who's pushing a certain use of language despite knowing that it's ambiguous. You're the one enforcing your language on others.
    • kevinh 3y ago
      Communication through language seems like it's by its very nature enforcing your language on others.
      • devnullbrain 3y ago
        Bạn nghĩ tốt hơn nếu chúng ta giao tiếp bằng nghĩa mọi người không thể hiểu ko?
    • a2800276 3y ago
      ... and being antisocial. What's the point of doing things with the sole motivation of annoying people?
      • ludston 3y ago
• bmitc 3y ago
  Are there any profiles of Wikipedia editors? I have to admit that they seem like another breed to me. I don't even bother editing Wikipedia, not that I ever did in quantity, just as I saw things. Everytime I have, even to correct some clear error, it is usually immediately reversed or removed altogether (things as simple as correcting the title of something). They have very strange conventions and their own Wiki language in terms of how they speak in comments and edit articles.
  • askin4it 3y ago
    [flagged]
• plaguepilled 3y ago
  >"Many people appreciate the work" This felt like an addition to ward of anticipated backlash. As if the author was aware their point might not be received favourably. Hmmm. I reject the argument that this term is bad because its origins are messy. Similarly a lot of the points put forward here seem like justifications for style rather than actual points (yes - even those ones about supposed clarity).
  • BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago
    Going a step further, this person should know that those are weasel words and are very much frowned upon. [citation needed]?
• dopa42365 3y ago
  For all intents and purposes, that doesn't really affect the wikipedia articles in any way, pointless to argue about it. Not going to read that wall of text about phrasing, but I assume there's a good enough reason (no strong opinion either way). Also, wiki bulk edit tools exist, it's not like they're actually editing tens of thousands of articles manually. If you keep track of a bunch of pages, you'll spot a lot of such more or less fully automated cleaning/manual of style/formatting bots and tools that don't really change the content of the articles themselves (some consistency doesn't hurt I guess). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
• wdr1 3y ago
  The interesting thing about the English language is that once 50% of the popular starts to use a word or phrase incorrectly, they become correct.
• kazinator 3y ago
  Prepositions combine with verbs to form phrasal verbs, and it's possible for phrasal verbs to have their own semantics that is removed from the base verb. For instance, "get in" or "get up" are different verbs from "get". It's also possible for a participial adjective (formed by "to be" + participle + preposition) to be an idiom. An example of this is "to be heard of" which means to be known or recognized. This has distinct semantics of its own, not simply coming from the phrasal "to hear of". You can be heard of, or have heard of. "to be comprised of" is the same kind of adjective, which happens not to be derived from a "to comprise of" verb. It's not necessary for a "V of" verb to actually exist in order for "be V of" to exist, and to have semantics distinct from V.
  • crazydoggers 3y ago
    First of all, he seems like a perfectly happy person, so I’m assuming saying he’s “sad” is attacking him personally because you don’t agree with him.. which is sad. Second, comprised already means “consists of”. Unlike your example, heard, which is the past tense if hear. So “comprised of” essentially means “consists of of” which is nonsense. Hence why it’s better to say “comprises” rather than “comprised of”.
    • kazinator 3y ago
      Meaning is not macro replacement. If we suppose that "comprised" means "consists of", it does not follow that "comprised of" means "consists of of". (Setting aside, for a moment, that "comprised" does not mean "consists of"). Just like "make" possibly meaning "create" doesn't imply that "make up" can turn into "create up". To comprise means for something to contain certain components (usually with a nuance that the list of components is complete). Since at least the 18th century, it has been used in a reverse way: components can comprise the whole. Charles Dickens used it in this reverse sense. It is from this reverse usage that the participial adjective arises: if components can comprise the whole, the whole is comprised of those components. Both the reverse usage and the adverb have been disputed, but are now hundreds of years old. The popularity of the participial adjective has wildly increased in the last half century. There is a logical reason behind the the reversal of comprise that doesn't seem to get discussed. Because comprise has a completeness nuance, it is actually a form of equivalence: if X comprises of parts A, B and C, it means it is equal to those parts. There is nothing else to X but A, B and C. Since equivalance commutes, comprise is expected to follow suit: A, B and C comprise X. Comprise really means something like "exactly covers" or "corresponds to in an exhaustive whole/part relationship". All that has happened is that we have lifted the restriction that the left operand of comprise must be the aggregate, and the right operand be the individual items. > attacking him personally because you don’t agree with him I was going to write "pseudo-intellectual twit on a lunatic correction rampage", but I went with "sad" to be nice.
• hgsgm 3y ago
  This thread is now larger than the content of all those edits. Good job, team!
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• captainmuon 3y ago
  Maybe I'm in the minority, but I actually prefer the use "is comprised of" over "comprises". For the supposedly correct version, you can almost always say it differently: E.g. simply: A proton contains three quarks. But if you want to use passive voice, there is no good other option. A proton is made of three quarks? Sounds too colloquial. ...is put together from...? No. I think "A proton is comprised of three quarks" is the cleanest way of saying what I want to say. And yes, this was an actual example from my work and I discussed it through because I feel strongly about it :-)
  • dheera 3y ago
    I believe technically speaking, "is composed of" is correct, "is comprised of" is not. Although "is comprised of" sounds more elite.
  • crazygringo 3y ago
    Yes, for whatever reason "is comprised of" feels like a natural, abeit rather technical/formal, expression. It reads clearly, something I'd expect to see in technical documentation or an encyclopedia article or non-fiction book. Whereas "comprises" feels halfway archaic when I read it, like it's the way an elderly British academic might speak, or something only used in legalese. Somebody using "comprises" in writing strikes me as a little odd, a little bit pretentious. I'm not saying whether any of this is right/wrong, it's just the connotations I've absorbed.
  • joe__f 3y ago
    I usually see 'a proton is made up of three quarks'
  • sebzim4500 3y ago
    I would object to the sentence "A proton is comprised of three quarks" on scientific grounds rather than grammatical ones. Only a tiny minority of the mass of the proton is in the three constituent quarks.
• shadowtree 3y ago
  Mental health is a spectrum, it is good this specific persona found an outlet that causes zero harm to himself or others. Profile of him: https://medium.com/backchannel/meet-the-ultimate-wikignome-10508842caad https://medium.com/backchannel/meet-the-ultimate-wikignome-1... Interesting comments around social on this specific persona - the literal grammar nazi.
• jzb 3y ago
  This is one of those issues where I have strong feelings that are in deep conflict. I agree that grammar / usage pedantry can be bad in many ways, that language evolves and you have to accept that. On the other hand... there's value in the stance that words mean things and lazy usage that leads to "well, people use it this way now so we're going to update the dictionary" is frustrating and not for the good. I like it when people use comprise correctly. "The book series comprises 20 novels and 5 novellas" or "the Tarot deck comprises 78 cards." I don't think it's a big win that lazy usage has led the various dictionaries to just throw up their hands and accept the other usage. But I also understand that after seeing comprise used the other way all the time, it seems silly to argue against it after a point. It's a form of disagree and commit, I suppose - you have to know when you've lost the argument and sticking with a specific usage has no virtue. The hill I'll die on is "then" and "than," though. In the past 5 or 10 years I've noticed a creeping trend of people writing "more then" rather than "more than." "Then" should be used for time, "than" is used to compare things. "More then" makes no sense as a comparison. But, at some point, it started becoming a more and more common error and now I think people honestly think it's correct because they've seen it online so much. Probably driven by autocomplete. I could totally understand going on a Wikipedia rampage and replacing every instance of "more then" that exists. As a side note, I find it hilarious that discussing proper English usage with technical folks - who are often deeply passionate about the correct way to do this or that in their area of expertise - are usually like "oh, that's not important. Grammar and spelling are stupid. I can't be bothered to learn that." But God help you if say "container" when you mean "container image" or something like that, because you'll get a lecture on how absolutely nothing you've written past that can be taken seriously because you got a tiny technical nuance wrong.
• ychompinator 3y ago
  [dead]
• paulcole 3y ago
  Remember when the Comic Sans creator said, “If you love Comic Sans you don’t know much about typography and you should get a new hobby. And if you hate Comic Sans you also don’t know much about typography and should get a new hobby. This is the grammar equivalent of that.
• PKop 3y ago
  Good for him, we should uphold standards and enforce correct grammar.
• cogitoergofutuo 3y ago
  I love these one-person crusades against present reality. Words mean whatever a critical mass of people want them to mean. For example, the usage of the present tense here: "Composed of" and "consists of" are better alternatives. is incorrect. It should read: Composed of" and "consists of" were better alternatives. This thread is literally a clout ATM machine for a group comprised of pedants.
  • Aeolun 3y ago
    I think the author is talking about a general scenario, not one of their past edits.
  • dixie_land 3y ago
    I could agree more! Irregardless of what words actually mean we should just use whatever we want.
    • mrexroad 3y ago
      Inconceivable!
  • bloppe 3y ago
    The problem here is the ambiguity. Someone who uses the original meaning of comprise will interpret a sentence in the opposite way of someone using the new. "America comprises many states and territories" -> "Many states and territories are comprised of America" have the same meaning with the original definition. With the new definition, you'd have to invert both sentences. This is called a Janus word because it can be it's own antonym. There are other Janus words, like "table" as in "to table a topic for discussion", which means opposite things in American vs British English. The author touches on the fact that that's a regional distinction, but there is no such regional distinction for comprise. Therefore it makes sense for a website like Wikipedia to pick a single form, and the original is still more widespread than the new.
    • blipvert 3y ago
      Quite
• dm319 3y ago
  If he's on the side of Fowler's modern English, I'm on his side.
• ajkjk 3y ago
  > Less confusing in musical context says "I think they apply that same art when they put together an album or a band" which is really not your decision to make! In no sense is composing music the same as composing a band; they're two utterly different meanings of the word. This argument is so flimsy that it seems like intentional BS.
• pelorat 3y ago
  I'm not native English speaker, but 90% of my communication happens in English. I've spoken it for more than 30 years but I don't think I've ever had a use for the word "comprised". I do however write the word "composed" a lot since I'm a programmer by profession. I also read a lot of books (in English) and I don't think I've come across it there either. I guess I approve.
• starkparker 3y ago
  It's wild that this editor has edited this out of everything but the Wikipedia Manual of Style: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+the+MoS&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3AManual+of+Style&search=comprise&ns0=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search...
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• Nifty3929 3y ago
  Mine is "try and" - Please, please stop saying this. It doesn't make any sense (except in the rare cases that it does, like "try and fail," unless you really are trying TO fail, in which case it doesn't) The correct phrase is "try TO" I'm on a one-person crusade to fix this throughout the English speaking world, by occasionally ranting about it to a relatively small group of indifferent people on the internet. Is it working?
  • srcreigh 3y ago
    “Try” is it’s own verb, and the x in “try and x” is also a verb/verb phrase. Read and weep!
  • a2800276 3y ago
    As in: "Will this work?" - "Why don't you try and see?" ? This is perfectly acceptable in my opinion, it's an elliptical form of: "Why don't you try (to do whatever "this" is) and see (if it will work)?". "Comprise" means the opposite of what people who use "comprised of" think it means. While "¹
• filmgirlcw 3y ago
  This essay and this crusade are a perfect embodiment of why no one takes Wikipedia seriously (even if we all use it as a starting place for research). I cannot imagine dedicating 15+ years of my life over something that is grammatically incorrect in some contexts at its worst — but is frequently just a stylistic choice. Of all the hills to die on and disrupt prose over, the author chooses this one. Wikipedia is full of poor writing and sentence construction, but this is worthy of 90,000 edits? Unbelievable. Telling someone to “touch grass” is incredibly overdone and passé, but this person really needs to touch grass.
  • dingledork69 3y ago
    > So my actual process involves a program that does the Wikipedia search (it just fetches the same URL as you fetch when you type in the Wikipedia search box) and compares the list to the previously fetched lists. It selects only those articles that weren't in one of those lists in the previous six months and generates a web page linking to them, in alphabetical order. I browse that page and proceed to edit them in order. I edit about 60 articles a week this way, typically within a few days of the article being created or edited to require it. Sounds like it barely takes any effort.
• everybodyknows 3y ago
  Garner's English Usage, 2016 edition, page 191: > Erroneous Use of is comprised of: > The phrase is comprised of is increasingly common but has long been considered poor usage. It was not a frequent collocation until about 1950. Replace it with some other, more accurate phrase -- e.g. ... > "Moreover, the crowd in the mysterious room was comprised of [read comprised or was comprised of] adults, and Harry knew there were not nearly that many teachers at Hogwarts" J.K Rowling ...
• uptownfunk 3y ago
  Has the fellow heard of something called find and replace? isn’t there some way to do this in batch?
• nmca 3y ago
  caring about grammar is a mug's game, always has been and always will be.
• newaccount74 3y ago
  It's disrespectful to change another authors words for no good reason. Just like those people who always have to rename a variable or reorder some conditional expression when reviewing a pull request. If there is no strong argument for the change, just leave it as the author intended it.
• ezekiel68 3y ago
  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.
  • make3 3y ago
    one guy deciding to change 90k articles unilateraly is kind of insane indeed.
    • tayo42 3y ago
      i find grammar obsession on the internet to be insane overall. you ever use the wrong their/there/theyre and have some guy reply with some unhinged comment. such odd behavior
      • epgui 3y ago
        I don’t know about the unhinged comments, but grammar is important and people who don’t care are wrong not to care.
        • tayo42 3y ago
          Thats just your opinion. if you understand me and i understand you then were good. my experience with grammar is that it just explains how we talk, like music theory. when your young and learning to speak, you just speak, your parent (probably) don't sit down with a white board and explain noun and complex verbs tenses at the age of four
          • epgui 3y ago
            Sorry, what things were good and when? Your young what?
• zsz 3y ago
  ..."irregardless," anyone? :-)
• graboidhunter 3y ago
  It is interesting that the account hasn't been flagged as a "single purpose account." I had an account in the past. I made two edits before people who disagreed with my edits started screaming WP:SPA[0]. It really soured my interest in contributing. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_accou...
  • starkparker 3y ago
    Wikipedia rules and policies are wielded as weapons more than they're used for their intent, or even as they're written. This account hasn't been flagged because more people defend it than attack it.
• sandworm101 3y ago
  If we are going to crack down on style, there are far bigger fish needing a fry. I hate how common passive voice has become, but I'm not going on an edit crusade to eliminate needless uses.
• ulizzle 3y ago
  "As one who subscribes to the anti-comprised-of doctrine described above, I can tell you it triggers the same "what an idiot" neurons in us as "could of" and "could care less". If I can spare any readers that discomfort without hurting anyone else, why wouldn't I?" There are not enough eyeballs in the world. This dude can't even use colons and semi-colons correctly in his essay.
• stainablesteel 3y ago
  the internet needs a kids table people over 35 shouldn't need to deal with petty shit like this
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• maperz 3y ago
  „Many writers use this phrase to aggrandize a sentence -- to intentionally make it longer and more sophisticated“ This has to be the perfect example for the usage of the word aggrandize itself.
  • lamontcg 3y ago
    And perfectly describes a problem that I see all too often with language and people trying desperately to sound smart/clever.
• _jab 3y ago
  How many people, I wonder, criticize this user's actions as pedantic, and yet themselves regularly make use of and appreciate code formatters like Black, Prettier, or yapf? It's the exact same problem.
• scotty79 3y ago
  I really see this as clear improvement. Comprised of is unnecessarily fuzzy word. It might be fine for native speakers who have fond memories of their grandmas using this word but for non-native speaker it is just obtuse.
• newmanah223 3y ago
  I use a chrome addon to ban all Wikipedia results from search.
• justin66 3y ago
  I would love to know if this guy shares any DNA with the Wikipedia admin who created tens of thousands of breast-related pages: https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/boobs-tits-wikipedia-titty-trial https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/boobs-tits-wikipedia-tit...
• valbaca 3y ago
  "It's illogical for a word to mean two opposite things." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym Bad Sick Cleave Sanction Bolt
• 8bitsrule 3y ago
  Alright then, let's move forward and encompass living writers!
• stjohnswarts 3y ago
  I might have to take up a new hobby against this user and undo their damage to wikipedia. We don't need these kinds of white knights patrolling the kingdom thinking they're doing something good when they're actually damaging the fabric and efforts of others.
• imwillofficial 3y ago
  This is stupid, and exceeded subjective. The original usage is absolutely fine.
• vldr 3y ago
  There's a reply all podcast episode on this: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/94hw2v https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/94hw2v
• shazeubaa 3y ago
  Now, if we could undo the use of “usage” (Trying hard not to mention “functionality”, too. Ooops.) :-)
• qubex 3y ago
  I’m impressed.
• kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  This definitely falls deep into the pedantry zone. Lots of modern English uſage was once wrong and has become normalized. The language doeſn't have an Académie calling the ſhots. It inevitably evolves, warts and all.
  • za3faran 3y ago
    I'm curious if that's mainly specific to English. As an Arabic speaker, tremendous care and effort has been taken to preserve Fuṣḥā (formal/High) Arabic throughout the centuries. Language and conjugation that sounds wrong is often shunned or mocked, even though it may partially be spoken in day to day speech in certain contexts. However, the distinction is always there, and such language will not be accepted in official discourse, let alone avenues like poetry and literature.
  • thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > Lots of modern English uſage was once wrong Get back to me when you can type the traditional ct ligature. ;D
  • devnullbrain 3y ago
    Evolution isn't unidirectional. English reached what it is today not only through the influence of people using words with new meanings but also with the force of people mandating style, taste and opinion. You wouldn't use 'normalized' if it wasn't for Noah Webster calling the shots. Moralising about caring about style is itself prescriptivism.
  • brylie 3y ago
    I’m still waiting for autocorrect to stop changing “wellbeing” to “well-being”
    • gondaloof 3y ago
      Time to start using Text Replacements. I have: - fuck -> fuck - duck -> fuck Note: I do like ducks but they’re generally less common than fucks.
• tpmx 3y ago
  https://www.npr.org/2015/03/12/392568604/dont-you-dare-use-comprised-of-on-wikipedia-one-editor-will-take-it-out https://www.npr.org/2015/03/12/392568604/dont-you-dare-use-c... Every time we avoid saying "comprised of," the pedants win.
  • cout 3y ago
    I love how the last sentence in the article begins with the word "But". Brilliant.
  • jdougan 3y ago
    Time to use more "comprised of" in wikipedia.
• xyst 3y ago
  I’m just glad this person is using a program he built to find articles using this specific phrase.
• kstrauser 3y ago
  Doing God’s work, fella. This is also a pet peeve of mine.
  • readthenotes1 3y ago
    Your peeve is comprised of people using a word to mean two opposite meanings, as if to make up for flammable and inflammable meaning the same?
    • kstrauser 3y ago
      Don’t make me throw my Strunk & White at you.
      • readthenotes1 3y ago
        Is that still a thing?
        • kstrauser 3y ago
          I’m not sure. I don’t write for a living so my reading of Elements was for personal interest. I think it has lots of good, practical advice but I’m not dogmatic about it in my own work.
• p-e-w 3y ago
  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 information is in the noun. Just leave them out, right? "I go house." > It's illogical for a word to mean two opposite things. "To comprise" and "to be comprised of" contain the same word, but not in the same sense. > The etymology of the word does not support "comprised of". That's irrelevant to the current meaning of the word. This is called an "etymological fallacy"[1]. > It's new. Many current Wikipedia readers were taught to write at a time when not one respectable dictionary endorsed "comprised of" in any way. It was barely ever used before 1970. Good luck reading Wikipedia, or any newspaper article, if you are uncomfortable with language coined during the past half-century. What exactly is that "Internet" thing people keep talking about? Note that "The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionaries regard the form comprised of as standard English usage."[2] The author could have just written "I don't like 'comprised of', and I'm going to impose my preference on everyone else, even though the term has been part of standard contemporary English for a long time." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprised_of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprised_of
  • Isinlor 3y ago
    Slavic languages do perfectly fine without articles. As Polish speaker I say leave them out ;) .
    • denton-scratch 3y ago
      > As Polish speaker I say leave them out "As Polish speaker, I say leave out"?
  • bee_rider 3y ago
    I don’t love “is comprised of,” and think it can usually be replaced with something like “contains” or simply “is,” resulting in a better, more direct sentence. But I’m not going to go on a crusade against it.
• AlbertCory 3y ago
  I'm not saying she's wrong, but: In patent claims, "comprising" and "consisting of" are different: 6,151,604 claim 1 is: 1. A data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory, comprising: means for configuring said memory according to a logical table, said logical table including: ... 6,151,605 claim 1 is: 1. A method for allowing a software application to access a configuration file, said configuration file comprising data used by said software application, comprising the steps of: providing a configuration processing library, said configuration processing library comprising ... =================== You almost never use "consisting of" in writing claims. https://patentfile.org/patent-writing-tip-comprises-vs-consisting-of/ https://patentfile.org/patent-writing-tip-comprises-vs-consi...
  • inimino 3y ago
    Note that this is using the word "comprising" correctly, so is irrelevant to the topic of the incorrect usage.
    • AlbertCory 3y ago
      TBH, I found her article intolerably tedious, so I didn't study it all. I did notice she singled out "comprising of" for abuse, which it definitely deserves. In a claim you write "comprising" or "comprised of."
  • bdowling 3y ago
    Claim language is very specific: A claim for an invention "comprising" A, B, and C also generally claims inventions that include other elements. Such claims are usually within the statuary categories of processes, machines, or articles of manufacture. A claim for an invention "consisting of" A, B, and C, however, does not generally claim inventions that include other elements. Such claims are usually usually within the statutory category of "compositions of matter" which includes such things as useful drug or chemical mixtures. Here's a link to the relevant U.S. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) section: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/current/d0e200824.html https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/current/d0e200824.htm...
• subroutine 3y ago
  Funny to see this on the front page of HN. I literally just went down this rabbit hole an hour ago from twitter. I found this article to be among the most interesting related commentary... https://web.archive.org/web/20150214014338/http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2015/02/11/comprise-yourself/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150214014338/http://chronicle....
• jmyeet 3y ago
  The psychology of editors and moderators is fascinating. I see them as being cast from the same mold as bureaucrats. All of them, left to their own devices, will invent work and create obstacles. It takes constant vigilance to avoid such people taking over a site and driving everyone away. I also wonder what the correlation is between such people and being on the spectrum: The need for rules, the comfort and predictability of order and consistency and that ability to exercise control or power over something (this last one being applicable to pretty much everyone). No hate intended here. It’s just musing out loud.
  • latency-guy2 3y ago
    Intend all the hate you want, they don't care, they will mandate their world even when it's wrong to do so. If hate is what would get them to stop, they'd have quit before they began.
    • askin4it 3y ago
      Yep. Definitely a case of one side half-heartedly participating and the other side playing for keeps. At some point, the toxicity will generate a wakeup call among normal people and they will have to face facts that a really rotten contingent of loudmouth pushy sorts are squatting in the culture, acting as if they own it.
• pcthrowaway 3y ago
  That whole page is comprised of the most pedantic arguments for what amounts to policing an evolving language
  • LesZedCB 3y ago
    prescriptivists are a real bummer
    • riwsky 3y ago
      Or rather: most people in everyday usage would describe prescriptivists as a real bummer
    • devnullbrain 3y ago
      It's not a sports team. If it was, editors, teachers and code reviewers would be its supporters. I'd prefer not to live in a world without those.
• ggm 3y ago
  Can they be persuaded to invest time in autocorrecing learnings to lessons and de-verbalating words like "medalled" and "podiumed"
• joecool1029 3y ago
  Wikipedia often purges things with no rhyme or reason. See the vandalism of the Sony Exmor article because one of one editor deciding arbitrarily that it needed a good content cleansing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exmor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exmor (Original list) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elk_Salmon/List_of_Sony_Exmor_image_sensors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elk_Salmon/List_of_Sony_E...
  • jl6 3y ago
    The cleansed version actually looks like an encyclopedia article, whereas the original just looks like a data dump.
  • Ekaros 3y ago
    I hope they start to kill lists in general. Like for example listing details of countries. Clearly those are not encyclopaedic and do not belong into Wikipedia by their standards...
• arthurcolle 3y ago
  A true hero. I respect their efforts and wish them well. Wikipedia moderation/editor gang continues to set new records for anal-retentiveness and obfuscated motivations but as long as I can keep slurping up enwiki-pages-articles dumps, I'll leave them alone and wish them well.
  • jayknight 3y ago
    A few years ago I went in a spree of fixing "could of" and "should of", but I only did like 50 pages.
  • cesaref 3y ago
    I just hope that they don't wake up one morning and realise they've wasted years of their life on some trivial crusade. Actually, that could apply to a lot of us on HN I guess :)
    • DonHopkins 3y ago
      A life comprised of pedantry is a life well lived.
• amoss 3y ago
  The reasoning in that essay comprises pedantry and poor judgement. Language reflects usage. Accepting that a particular usage has existed for hundreds of years, but claiming it is too novel to be correct is quite bizarre.
  • Georgelemental 3y ago
    Language correctness should not be just about usage; ease of understanding and aesthetics are also important. "Comprised of" arguably fails on both counts.
• hatsune 3y ago
  If contain and consist and replace a new word and it is supposed to be an encyclopædia then maybe it is a legit move. It's like English professor ranting about use vs. utilise. Mixing words are bad attempts and precise wording is objectively better, tho I highly question if the machine effort replacing a ambiguous word is good enough to detect what it actually means in context.
  • infostud 3y ago
    Yes I've been changing "utilise" to "use" by hand in Wikipedia for many years. When I read "utilise" I hear Homer Simpson in a top hat trying to be posh.
    • bloak 3y ago
      Perhaps some people find monosyllabic words embarrassing. Another word sometimes misused instead of "use" is "leverage", and you'll often find "ubiquitous" in the same paragraph in engineering/marketing contexts. But "leverage" should not always be replaced with "use": sometimes "exploit" would be a better alternative. And "leverage" has a proper meaning in finance, of course.
• ignite 3y ago
  I have to admit: I have a few phrases like this, that I'd like to do this to! :-)
• masswerk 3y ago
  I think, we should make an exception, if the same sentence also includes a reversal of "consists". Example: "The right of way is comprised of tracks, sleepers and ballast, while locomotive and wagons consist a train." (Rationale: We're clearly facing the utterance of an AI with suboptimal vectorization and there is simply nothing we can do about this.) ;-)
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• 000ooo000 3y ago
  So if most readers are not really confused by the incorrect usage ("comprised of") and they understand roughly what is being said through context, and no readers learn the correct usage of "comprised" because this editor is simply erasing it.. then what is actually being achieved here? If the editor were correcting the bad usages then I would likely consider this a service to the public but as it stands they're just perpetuating ignorance. In any case though, I think I agree with those calling this a waste of time, time that I think would be far better spent reworking articles for https://simple.wikipedia.org/ https://simple.wikipedia.org/.
  • netsharc 3y ago
    "I upgraded my breaks and my car slows down a lot better now.". Spot any mistakes? Do you understand what I mean in context anyway? So is it fine to use "breaks" when I mean "brakes"?
    • yCombLinks 3y ago
      The problem with your sentence is you are simply misspelling what a person said. The comprise example, they are actually saying comprise. It is a different word!
    • 000ooo000 3y ago
      Yes I understand; no it is obviously not "fine". I'm not sure what your point is, because I'm not saying to leave "breaks" there. My POV is that changing your sentence to >"I upgraded the bits that slow my car down and my car slows down a lot better now." does not help anyone learn that brakes is correct and breaks is not.
      • rossriley 3y ago
        When you see good language use in writing it communicates its own sense of quality. This differentiates low-value sources where some people communicate without an appreciation of the minutiae of the language. Now for forum comments or low-value writing it's not an issue, but you can argue that having someone who is experienced with using a style guide and communicating consistently adds some authoritativeness to the publications. In the case of Wikipedia that is a valid thing to aim for.
• alvah 3y ago
  Not all heroes wear capes. "draws" instead of "drawers", "brought" instead of "bought", "aircrafts", "softwares", and "could care less" can also DIAGF.
  • DonHopkins 3y ago
    Speaking of heroes who I could care less about: Jarrett Heather presents: Word Crimes (2014) (jarrettheather.com) Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20170420022942/https://jarrettheather.com/wordcrimes/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170420022942/https://jarretthe... "Weird Al" Yankovic - Word Crimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc >The Completed Music Video: In November 2013, "Weird Al" Yankovic asked me to direct an animated video for "Word Crimes", a parody of Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" about the supposed abuse of proper language. >The result of 500 hours of work in After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator and Premiere goes by in 3 minutes, 44 seconds. I hope you find each one of them entertaining. Word Crimes Animatic: https://vimeo.com/101810947 https://vimeo.com/101810947 >This storyboard-in-motion took about 100 hours. Al signed off on this design on January 25th, 2014, only 3 weeks after he gave me his homemade "demo" for Word Crimes, which you can hear on the animatic soundtrack. >If you watch very closely, you might notice a gag or two that didn't make it through to final animation or some very subtle changes in the lyrics. HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22820457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22820457 MrHeather on April 9, 2020 | parent | next [–] When I first met with Al about this project, I was quick to point out that linguists would disagree with about a third of the "advice" he's giving out. His immediate reply was "WELL THEY'RE WRONG"--really loudly in the "Weird Al" character voice. In my mind the joke is that the song's narrator is a know-it-all character that shouldn't be taken entirely seriously. But on the other hand, a lot of educators have contacted me to tell me they use the song as a learning tool. DonHopkins on April 9, 2020 | prev | next [–] Jarrett Heather is the artist behind Weird Al's "Word Crimes" video released in 2014 (at 48.4 million views now). Word Crimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc "Word Crimes" is Weird Al's spot-on parody of Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" with T.I. and Pharrell Williams. I think Weird Al's version is better and more educational than the original -- smart and catchy like a modern Schoolhouse Rock. Blurred Lines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU Weird Al contacted Jarrett Heather after being impressed by "Shop Vac", his previous work with kinetic text (typographic animation), which he made using animation tools like AfterEffects. Shop Vac: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4sOfO8Ei1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4sOfO8Ei1g This page on Jarrett Heather's web site tells the story and shows the art and technology behind the "Word Crimes" video. He's also published the Animatic storyboard-in-motion that took about 100 hours, to Weird Al's original home-made demo of the song! It's fascinating to compare them, and see how their ideas evolved from storyboard to final video. Jarrett Heather presents: Word Crimes: https://web.archive.org/web/20170420022942/https://jarrettheather.com/wordcrimes/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170420022942/https://jarretthe... >The Completed Music Video: In November 2013, "Weird Al" Yankovic asked me to direct an animated video for "Word Crimes", a parody of Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" about the supposed abuse of proper language. >The result of 500 hours of work in After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator and Premiere goes by in 3 minutes, 44 seconds. I hope you find each one of them entertaining. The Animatic: https://vimeo.com/102959171 https://vimeo.com/102959171 >This storyboard-in-motion took about 100 hours. Al signed off on this design on January 25th, 2014, only 3 weeks after he gave me his homemade "demo" for Word Crimes, which you can hear on the animatic soundtrack. >If you watch very closely, you might notice a gag or two that didn't make it through to final animation or some very subtle changes in the lyrics. Jarrett originally designed the Live Journal logo back in 2000 or so, and parodied it in the video, with a broken pencil tip. https://jarrett.livejournal.com/208198.html https://jarrett.livejournal.com/208198.html Here's a great "Local Boy Makes Good" article and TV interview about Jarrett Heather from around the time the video came out, that was previously posted to HN -- I love his down-to-earth advice: Elk Grove animator thrives as ‘Weird Al’ Yankovic’s partner in ‘Word Crimes’: https://web.archive.org/web/20140725043615/https://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/17/6564802/elk-grove-animator-captures-spotlight.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140725043615/https://www.sacbe... Common Ground - Jarrett Heather “Word Crimes” Music Video Artist https://vimeo.com/103615214 https://vimeo.com/103615214 >"If I did fail, it would have been Al's fault for hiring a software developer to make a cartoon." >Word Crimes is 244 seconds long. Each second took two hours at the computer. 500 hours work, in all. >"Yeah, no classes, just, you know. I think people really underestimate the value of just sitting down and reading the manual."
• mihaic 3y ago
  It was all dumb pedantry until the point where the editor talked about removing instances of "comprised of" inside quotes. Sure, you can add an elipsis if you want trim a quote, but altering words in a quote is equivalent to lying, even if a mild form of lying.
  • rossriley 3y ago
    The correct way to do this in most style guides is to add (sic) to the quote which means you're aware of the incorrect use but are quoting directly.
    • rvnx 3y ago
      It's not incorrect use. If you add "sic" you try to make the speaker sound like an idiot and that you have the right way. Plus, "sic" pushes the attention of the reader toward this specific word, when it may be a waste of time of the reader. The personal phobia for certain words (of the writer) shouldn't impact the reader.
      • manuel_w 3y ago
        I disagree. I'm quite happy to see the (sic) in quotes. Without, I'd read the quote and stumble over the incorrect would and would think "wait, did they really say that or has it been transcribed wrongly?". With the (sic), I'm that matter doesn't even arise. I understand it is the exact phrasing of the author and go on. Also, I know whom to attribute this to. Did I read the exact transcription of an hazily author, or a hazy transcription of an exact author?