3 ms·

> With all due respect, if you're not a native English speaker you really aren't in a position to judge what constitutes "better language" They said "find the

> With all due respect, if you're not a native English speaker you really aren't in a position to judge what constitutes "better language" They said "find the edited sentences always easier to read" and that's valuable regardless if you're a native speaker or not. Of course, what "better language" is as subjective as "clean code" so probably won't reach any consensus there. But all of this is highly subjective in the end, so everyone's opinion is equally worth, native speaker or not.

lolinder 3y ago
I was responding to this: > I find it just wild that people would object to better language. They're either saying that their own sense of what is more legible is enough to define what is better, or they're buying into the pedantic arguments in TFA. As to what is easier to read, I think the English Wikipedia should be written to be legible to native English speakers. This is better for everyone: native English speakers can read their Wikipedia, and English learners get exposed to actual English usage rather than a simplified version. In this case, it's not obvious to me that any substantial portion of the English-speaking population sincerely gets confused by "comprised of". It feels much more like the insistence on not ending sentences in prepositions: a rule for the sake of having a rule. EDIT: In fact, "comprised of" recently overtook "comprises" in published books: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+of%22%2C%22comprises%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+o...
- Macha 3y ago
  > This is better for everyone: native English speakers can read their Wikipedia, and English learners get exposed to actual English usage rather than a simplified version Side note, there is an actual "simplified english" wikipedia. So even early learners who want a simplified resource have one aside from regular Wikipedia. https://simple.wikipedia.org/ https://simple.wikipedia.org/
- ttiurani 3y ago
  For the record, I agree with your criticism. I did generalize my experience without enough justification. It was a 30 second runaway comment and the latter part clearly doesn't hold up against scrutiny.
haswell 3y ago
> But all of this is highly subjective in the end, so everyone's opinion is equally worth, native speaker or not. That subjectivity doesn’t equate to the equal worth of all opinions. It just means that no one opinion can be considered universal. That lack of universality doesn’t mean that picking any one direction is as good as picking any other. If I strongly prefer a Victorian style, giving my preference equal weight is likely to make the content far less valuable, because my preference is not a common one. It would be necessary to examine the goals behind the content: the audience it is intended for, the desired effect on that audience, the nuances lost by preferring audience B over Audience A, the impact of that loss, etc. Everyone should be allowed to have a preference, absolutely, but applying individual preferences to content does not lead to equivalent outcomes.

lolinder 3y ago

I was responding to this: > I find it just wild that people would object to better language. They're either saying that their own sense of what is more legible is enough to define what is better, or they're buying into the pedantic arguments in TFA. As to what is easier to read, I think the English Wikipedia should be written to be legible to native English speakers. This is better for everyone: native English speakers can read their Wikipedia, and English learners get exposed to actual English usage rather than a simplified version. In this case, it's not obvious to me that any substantial portion of the English-speaking population sincerely gets confused by "comprised of". It feels much more like the insistence on not ending sentences in prepositions: a rule for the sake of having a rule. EDIT: In fact, "comprised of" recently overtook "comprises" in published books: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+of%22%2C%22comprises%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+o...

Macha 3y ago
> This is better for everyone: native English speakers can read their Wikipedia, and English learners get exposed to actual English usage rather than a simplified version Side note, there is an actual "simplified english" wikipedia. So even early learners who want a simplified resource have one aside from regular Wikipedia. https://simple.wikipedia.org/ https://simple.wikipedia.org/
ttiurani 3y ago
For the record, I agree with your criticism. I did generalize my experience without enough justification. It was a 30 second runaway comment and the latter part clearly doesn't hold up against scrutiny.

haswell 3y ago

> But all of this is highly subjective in the end, so everyone's opinion is equally worth, native speaker or not. That subjectivity doesn’t equate to the equal worth of all opinions. It just means that no one opinion can be considered universal. That lack of universality doesn’t mean that picking any one direction is as good as picking any other. If I strongly prefer a Victorian style, giving my preference equal weight is likely to make the content far less valuable, because my preference is not a common one. It would be necessary to examine the goals behind the content: the audience it is intended for, the desired effect on that audience, the nuances lost by preferring audience B over Audience A, the impact of that loss, etc. Everyone should be allowed to have a preference, absolutely, but applying individual preferences to content does not lead to equivalent outcomes.