5 ms·

What I don't quite understand is the resistance. It's a fact that some people (and I mean readers, not the editors) don't like, understand, and/or accept the ne

What I don't quite understand is the resistance. It's a fact that some people (and I mean readers, not the editors) don't like, understand, and/or accept the new meaning of this word, whether we like it or not. Whereas everyone should be agreeing that the alternatives are fine. So if you have an alternative everyone is fine with... it seems like a no-brainer to use it? When you have something that everyone is happy with, why insist on an alternative that some people hate?

woooooo 3y ago
There are a billion of us speaking the language. It's a little presumptuous to tell a billion people what to do and there should probably be some amount of default resistance.
- dataflow 3y ago
  Nobody is telling a billion people what to do though? We're just talking about what word to use in an article edited by a handful of people. The billion people can keep using whatever words they want.
  - amelius 3y ago
    The billion people prefer to read the language that they also use, in all its glory. What you're defending is a bit like replacing all female TV hosts by men and then saying that nobody surely is against men on TV.
    - dataflow 3y ago
      Do you really believe the loss society would suffer from editing "comprised of" in Wikipedia articles is actually comparable to what it would suffer if they discriminated against half the population on TV?
      - cogitoergofutuo 3y ago
        I can only speak for myself, but the actual phrase “comprised of” is the least interesting thing to discuss when it comes to this topic. I am fascinated by a single person taking up the cause of “correcting” the language of others based off of their personal linguistic aesthetic preference. I don’t see many people saying “I often have to stop at the words ‘comprised of’ and reevaluate the meaning of the sentence that I’m reading lest I completely misunderstand it.” This isn’t actually in practical service of clarity, it’s an exercise in preserving a sense of meaningful posterity — a deeply personal and sentimental endeavor despite what “reasons” one is able to elucidate.
        dataflow 3y ago
        But again, this isn't even about correcting others' language. People are fine to use whatever language that serves them personally well in their lives - but this isn't about that. It's about writing encyclopedia articles in a way that's best for their readers. Every comment I'm reading here so far seems to insist this is somehow personal toward the author and correcting them, whereas it really isn't.
        cogitoergofutuo 3y ago
        > It's about writing encyclopedia articles in a way that's best for their readers. This sentence contains a load-bearing “best”. The Wikipedia editor’s contention is that they have established the canonical “best”, and it is that contention that is being scrutinized.
        dataflow 3y ago
        "Best for readers" is not particularly subjective here. We're talking about an encyclopedia whose audience is the entire English-speaking population. Its #1 job is to communicate relevant information on each topic clearly and accurately to the broadest audience in each language - not to match anyone's preferred terminology, write Shakespearean prose, or push the boundaries of the language. We already have multiple words that are perfectly well-suited for use with the intended meaning - we don't even have that luxury with so many other words. Deliberately picking a word that confuses some readers and annoys others just introduces problems and friction where there don't need to be any.
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  Wouldn't this argument cut both ways? Presumably the people that started using the phrase incorrectly were bucking the trend.
- JW_00000 3y ago
  There's 380 million native speaker of this language, but another billion non-native speakers. If this change helps that latter billion, should the former 380 million object? (On a personal note, as a non-native speaker of English I've always found the phrase "comprised of" confusing. I infer the "directionality" based on context but am unsure how to use it correctly myself.)
nitwit005 3y ago
I dislike the way you communicate. It's wrong. I don't care if a majority of people agree with you. That doesn't matter. Can't see why anyone would be annoyed.
- dataflow 3y ago
  Why take this personally? This is not a personal battle. It's isn't about disliking the way a person communicates, nor about it being right or wrong. It's about the way Wikipedia articles communicate, namely, in a way that hopefully minimizes friction for their readers (whom it's there for - it's not there for the editors), without compromising on accuracy. I would think editors really ought to be able to distinguish "I like this word more" and "I think this word is best for readers".
  - nitwit005 3y ago
    You asked why there is resistance. I summarized a portion of their argument, in blunt terms, as that makes it clear why some people might be upset.

woooooo 3y ago

There are a billion of us speaking the language. It's a little presumptuous to tell a billion people what to do and there should probably be some amount of default resistance.

dataflow 3y ago
Nobody is telling a billion people what to do though? We're just talking about what word to use in an article edited by a handful of people. The billion people can keep using whatever words they want.
- amelius 3y ago
  The billion people prefer to read the language that they also use, in all its glory. What you're defending is a bit like replacing all female TV hosts by men and then saying that nobody surely is against men on TV.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    Do you really believe the loss society would suffer from editing "comprised of" in Wikipedia articles is actually comparable to what it would suffer if they discriminated against half the population on TV?
    - cogitoergofutuo 3y ago
      I can only speak for myself, but the actual phrase “comprised of” is the least interesting thing to discuss when it comes to this topic. I am fascinated by a single person taking up the cause of “correcting” the language of others based off of their personal linguistic aesthetic preference. I don’t see many people saying “I often have to stop at the words ‘comprised of’ and reevaluate the meaning of the sentence that I’m reading lest I completely misunderstand it.” This isn’t actually in practical service of clarity, it’s an exercise in preserving a sense of meaningful posterity — a deeply personal and sentimental endeavor despite what “reasons” one is able to elucidate.
      - dataflow 3y ago
        But again, this isn't even about correcting others' language. People are fine to use whatever language that serves them personally well in their lives - but this isn't about that. It's about writing encyclopedia articles in a way that's best for their readers. Every comment I'm reading here so far seems to insist this is somehow personal toward the author and correcting them, whereas it really isn't.
        cogitoergofutuo 3y ago
        > It's about writing encyclopedia articles in a way that's best for their readers. This sentence contains a load-bearing “best”. The Wikipedia editor’s contention is that they have established the canonical “best”, and it is that contention that is being scrutinized.
        dataflow 3y ago
        "Best for readers" is not particularly subjective here. We're talking about an encyclopedia whose audience is the entire English-speaking population. Its #1 job is to communicate relevant information on each topic clearly and accurately to the broadest audience in each language - not to match anyone's preferred terminology, write Shakespearean prose, or push the boundaries of the language. We already have multiple words that are perfectly well-suited for use with the intended meaning - we don't even have that luxury with so many other words. Deliberately picking a word that confuses some readers and annoys others just introduces problems and friction where there don't need to be any.
nirvdrum 3y ago
Wouldn't this argument cut both ways? Presumably the people that started using the phrase incorrectly were bucking the trend.
JW_00000 3y ago
There's 380 million native speaker of this language, but another billion non-native speakers. If this change helps that latter billion, should the former 380 million object? (On a personal note, as a non-native speaker of English I've always found the phrase "comprised of" confusing. I infer the "directionality" based on context but am unsure how to use it correctly myself.)

nitwit005 3y ago

I dislike the way you communicate. It's wrong. I don't care if a majority of people agree with you. That doesn't matter. Can't see why anyone would be annoyed.

dataflow 3y ago
Why take this personally? This is not a personal battle. It's isn't about disliking the way a person communicates, nor about it being right or wrong. It's about the way Wikipedia articles communicate, namely, in a way that hopefully minimizes friction for their readers (whom it's there for - it's not there for the editors), without compromising on accuracy. I would think editors really ought to be able to distinguish "I like this word more" and "I think this word is best for readers".
- nitwit005 3y ago
  You asked why there is resistance. I summarized a portion of their argument, in blunt terms, as that makes it clear why some people might be upset.