10 ms·
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
by 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 agoone guy deciding to change 90k articles unilateraly is kind of insane indeed.
- tayo42 3y agoi 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 agoI don’t know about the unhinged comments, but grammar is important and people who don’t care are wrong not to care.
- tayo42 3y agoThats 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 agoSorry, what things were good and when? Your young what?
- tayo42 3y agoIf we were speaking out loud you could figure it out
- epgui 3y agoAnd yet, we're not speaking out loud.
- School-Cotton 3y agoBut you did understand him. You’re pretending you didn’t because if that were true it’d reinforce your point, but it’s not in fact true.
- epgui 3y agoYou can't possibly know whether or not I understood them. I think I understood them, but I can never be sure, because in order to understand something with improper grammar, you usually need to "fill in the gaps" with the most reasonable assumptions possible, and those don't necessarily line up with your interlocutor's beliefs or intentions. Putting words in other people's mouths is often required to "lubricate communication along", but it should be done as minimally as possible if the goal is for people to understand each other. See Grice's cooperative principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle
- School-Cotton 3y agoAbsolutely nonsensical bullshit. Everyone reading this knows you perfectly understood “were” to mean “we’re” here. Engaging in the fictional universe where you didn’t is a waste of time.
- epgui 3y agoIt's not bullshit, it's what explains a large class of misunderstandings. What's bullshit is people who think they know what other people think.
- junon 3y agoGrammar is a linguistic study and more than just "like, a general guideline." For example, "you're" and "your" are two very different words. Let people obsess. They're not hurting you.
- epgui 3y agoThere's also a well-known thing about English in that it's culturally much less prescriptive about grammar than other languages. The American-English philosophy around grammar doesn't necessarily transpose to other grammars around the world.
- OJFord 3y agoAmerican English is trying to do away with adverbs entirely! Sometimes I find myself shouting '-ly!' at the screen. (I just wanted to leave that comment here real quick.)
- junon 3y ago... They said, spending too much effort to try to insult me by going through my comment history and still missing the point of the original comment.
- OJFord 3y agoI didn't even look at your profile, if you've said 'real quick' or something similar before (or whatever it is you think I gleaned from there) it's a coincidence. And in fact why would I have? I was replying to something someone else said in reply to you, not even related really except via parent to your GP comment.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- OJFord 3y agoI understand you, but it's more difficult than if you wrote correctly (according to my arseholish prescriptivist rules, if you like, yes) - you're communicating less effectively by not subscribing to the standard rules; I misread you, take longer to understand your meaning, it takes patience and begins to frustrate.
- SoftTalker 3y agoAlso spoken language is looser. You can't hear the difference between "there," "their," and "they're" but your brain fills in the appropriate meaning. When you see it written though, there is a slight mental stumble as you initially parse the word as written, then understand that it's wrong, and make the appropriate mental substitution.
- epgui 3y agoSpoken language is also different in that, as you correctly point out, it is at times more limited in how much information it contains, but also, in other ways it can be much richer in information than the equivalent writing. Things like nonverbal or tonality can contain a lot of helpful or contextually-relevant information that cannot be found in writing. So writing and speaking, while having a lot of linguistic overlap, are just different beasts. (Ironically I think my grammar in this comment is not great, but FYI English is not my first language-- I'd appreciate a correction if appropriate)
- OJFord 3y agoThat's highly accent dependent। I think I pronounce all three differently (Southern RP-ish (as in not farmer) BrE) but 'their' and 'they're' are close। Rhotic AmE though clearly distinguishes those, and I can imagine them all sounding similar in that sort of accent।
- npteljes 3y agoGrammar is many things packed in one. For one, it can signal a bunch of things, like maturity, superficiality, seriousness, intelligence. The lack of tolerance, like in you're example, is likely just someone who wants to vent, not a genuine concern for grammar. The other thing is that writing on the open internet means that potentially many people will read the writing. Good grammar is borne out of routine, but this only works if the people practice the right thing - if they practice the wrong thing, then next time they'll potentially do the wrong thing by habit. So really, good grammar depends on reading texts with good grammar. It's also how we pick up vocabulary. Putting these things together, I think people owe it to each other, and the collective humanity, that they produce quality writings on public places.
- tayo42 3y agoI think your putting to much importance on comments on the internet. These are throwaway thoughts. Non of us are changing the world with our comments here. It's just entertainment.
- tinideiznaimnou 3y agoIt's just data.
- SoftTalker 3y agoWait until AIs start making changes. Human editors won't be able to keep up.
- kragen 3y agothis is literally what wikipedia is for, so any one guy can change 90k articles unilaterally
- echelon 3y ago> some kind of effective defense mechanism in open society against activist superminorities. I'll be using comprised of more frequently. I was already a satisfied user, but now I'll continue with glee. Language changes and evolves to serve the purpose of communication. It doesn't care about rules or usage.
- JW_00000 3y agoAfter your first sentence, I thought you were going to argue the opposite. This person's arguments seem to hold water. Aren't the people that argue with him and want to revert his edits a (very strange) activist superminority? Maybe we need a defense mechanism against bike-shedding, no matter what color bikeshed one prefers?
- jaggederest 3y ago> This person's arguments seem to hold water. Not in the slightest. Categorically, he's using prescriptive arguments, which are bunk. Language evolves, people can use it however they want.
- ghaff 3y agoNonsense. Editors will edit based on whatever style guides they use and what's generally considered "proper" usage while respecting the author's stylistic choices as much as possible. With respect to this case, I'd have to see a given usage in context but I would probably generally leave it as is. If I'm editing you I'll try to avoid making a lot of changes that boil down to stylistic choice but I will absolutely change things I (and my references) consider wrong. ADDED: You can of course personally use language however you want. But others will judge you based on that.
- jaggederest 3y agoRight, and they're free to do so, just don't try to justify it by saying it's "correct". I'm not saying we should write poorly, or deliberately sloppily, just it's at the author or editor's preference. I'd support this guy if he said "I hate 'comprised of' and so I am changing it where I can", but the idea that there's somehow a logical argument justifying it is silly. Appeal to authority is particularly silly in the context of linguistics. If you like MLA style, do that. I personally love a little extra diaeresis and the oxford comma, but I wouldn't make them the law.
- ghaff 3y ago
- fnordpiglet 3y agoIt doesn’t seem like it’s that easy a task. I’d argue improving grammar and language in an encyclopedia isn’t altering the cultural landscape, I don’t think the usage of “comprised of” is a meaningful cultural artifact that requires embodying in an encyclopedias language style. I’d note the person also allows for people to revert the change without consequence if they feel passionate about the cultural landscape of “comprised of” usage vs generally accepted better alternatives. I actually kind of admire these folks that do stuff like this. These sorts of obsessions are interesting artifacts of the internet’s cultural landscape.
- matteoraso 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. Wikipedia is nothing but a superminority making the website their playground, though[0]. If you get rid of the superminority, the website literally couldn't function. The inner workings of Wikipedia are actually a fascinating rabbit hole to fall into, but the takeaway is that this behaviour seems to be ingrained into human nature. Basically, the majority consume, a minority produces, and a minority of the minority produces a lot. You can see this in any participatory system as well, not just Wikipedia. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_...
- Meekro 3y agoI'm reminded of an old saying, "The world is run by those who show up."
- theturtletalks 3y agoI prefer this one: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
- itronitron 3y agoThe small group doesn't have to be thoughtful (and they often aren't), they just need to be committed.
- theturtletalks 3y agoThe strong commitment and resolve within a small group inspires others to join.
- lo_zamoyski 3y agoOddly enough, in Margaret Mead's case, that seems to mean lying to the world about Samoan promiscuity to rationalize her own adultery (implying that in the "state of nature", whatever that means, it's no big deal), thus contributing in her own way to the groundwork for the disaster that was the sexual revolution.
- dmix 3y agoSociety always has people who contribute to specific things way more than the general population. And not even just generally in specific niches but some people are just highly productive and highly motivated. I don’t think there can be a system to balance this without harming the wider system simply because these people make up the bulk of the work being done, and enforcement systems usually cause much of the same sort of power centralization, but often worse. Of course not all of the work by these powerusers is useful but I can’t imagine a system that only blocks the bad work without harming the highly productive ‘good’ people who are trying to be more representative of the public. Plus stereotypically making the rules/processes is the easy part, because people are motivated at the start to fix things, but after it’s in place the actual hard work of enforcing it and doing it right is often neglected… or these same small groups of “powerusers” will also end up running the moderation and use it to explicitly control things even more. Although those risks/issues has rarely stopped people from trying in the past.
- AlbertCory 3y agoYou know, I'll take a very minority POV: overall, Wikipedia does a pretty decent job of reporting the facts. I'll trust what they say about some non-controversial person or event much more than any other media outlet. Of course it's not perfectly unbiased, and anal super-pedants do make it intolerable to try to contribute. That said, they do at least make an effort to stick to the facts.
- ghaff 3y agoI'm not sure that is a very minority POV. I'm not sure about "much more than any other media outlet" but for mainstream non-controversial topics it's probably pretty accurate. It may not be comprehensible for anyone who isn't already an expert, it's maybe pretty thin if the person/subject isn't part of the modern tech and hobbyist zeitgeist, but it's probably not a bad starting point especially if it has a lot of good cites.
- psychphysic 3y agoWikipedia is entirely controlled by activist super minorities. Articles are often heavily censored or simply biased. Maybe the whole internet is? But I find myself relying on Wikipedia less and less. I think chat searches are probably the final nail in the coffin for me directly access it.
- hkt 3y ago[citation needed]
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y agoFork it
- anigbrowl 3y agoEditing for grammatical/stylistic clarity isn't an alteration of the 'cultural landscape.' By that standard nobody would be allowed to pick up litter.
- choppaface 3y ago1. Create a Wikipedia page explaining the confusion here (borrowing from author’s essay). But also ratify the “incorrect” as “not considered harmful and is permissible on wikipedia” 2. Encourage the author to do something that effects more positive sentiment with their time, even if it’s “wrong.” It could be this behavior is compulsive and author has problems controlling it. At least try to steer that energy, and just do not engage in fighting it.
- chris_wot 3y agoYou need to look at those who edit categories. Wikipedia no longer gives much credence to those who create, research and improve articles. It is now full of people poking around the edges. There is one editor, BrownHairedGirl, who tags articles with “bare links” (note she does not actually change those links very often), and gets into battles about categories that has driven off dozens of users (if not more). They are the most toxic editor on Wikipedia but have amassed a group of followers who are of the same ilk - people who do nothing but poke at minor parts of Wikipedia but contribute nothing of significance - and will remove anyone who gets on their bad side. Wikipedia is said to have hit “maintenance phase”. That’s ridiculous, there is a lot more to be writing about. Basically these people are killing the project. It’s a complete tragedy. Edit: here’s an example of the vicious and petty actions they make - they created a category “Abusive, mean, petty Wikipedians” for people who use a particular category that is never filled in on their user pages. This has been there since 2017. We have one user who calls themselves the “category police” who is currently arguing such a divisive and abusive labeling of editors is quite acceptable. The irony is strong in that one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abusive,_mean,_petty_Wikipedians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abusive,_mean,_petty_...
- loudandskittish 3y agoI'm finding this entire comment section confusing and I genuinely want to understand what is so offensive about what this editor did. To me this does not look like a problem that requires a solution and I even appreciate the essay (I've always had a hard time understanding the usage of 'comprises'). ...yet I'm seeing unironic comparisons to both 1984 and Nazi Germany, so ... what this person did is evil? Can someone please help me understand this?
- crazygringo 3y agoThe editor is imposing a controversial viewpoint on tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles that is not supported by authority or consensus. Merriam-Webster, for example, disagrees with the editor [1]. It's not so different from if a Brit tried to change every instance of "color" to "colour", or an American changed every instance of "colour" to "color". It would be incredibly annoying, patronizing, and disrespectful. Wikipedia is not a place for people to wage their private grammatical language wars, and so people are responding in a negative way because the editor is trying to impose their viewpoint by sheer force rather than respecting contributors who choose to use Merriam-Webster's 2nd definition of the word. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise
- BuyMyBitcoins 3y agoI don’t think anyone thinks this person is genuinely evil. I sense people are reacting against what they perceive as a busybody who has a disturbing compulsion to control something that isn’t even an issue. Even though this person is a lone wolf, their actions feel disturbingly authoritarian. This level of compulsion and control is immensely off-putting to the average person. Anyone who puts this much effort into controlling information seems like someone worth confronting.
- kelnos 3y agoI don't see this as a problem. The editor here is arguably correct in that the usage he's changing is incorrect. You may find it pedantic (and I might agree), but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Does tilting at this particular windmill make Wikipedia worse? I would say it makes it better, even if in a very small way. Even if you don't care about the incorrect usage, I find his argument that some uses are there just to make the prose sound more "intelligent" -- at the expense of clarity and ease of reading -- to be valid enough. I would much rather read "The residents are former New Yorkers" instead of "The population is comprised of former New Yorkers". The latter is unnecessarily complex for a sentence like that. I'm sure someone can find a completely separate example of this sort of editing that actually is harmful. But the solution to that isn't "ban all edits of this sort".
- wolverine876 3y ago> 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. Maybe the pathology is this kind of conservativism. I find lack of change - due to knee-jerk resistance and corrupt vested interest - causes far more problems than anything. There is so much we could do - easy low-hanging fruit - where the only obstacle is (this kind of) conservativism.
- jmull 3y ago> Pedants tilting at windmills shouldn't be able to alter the cultural landscape this easily The battle here pedant vs “comprised of”. What’s the cultural importance? Language drifts. The rate of that drift is of no particular importance and that seems to be all that’s at stake here.
- Acrobatic_Road 3y agoThe solution is to organize your own superminority to build a new regime.
- mxkopy 3y agoThe solution is to call it what it is - mental illness - and treat it as such. Being a grammar nazi is one thing, but editing quotes to match a language that stopped evolving in the 1970s definitely oversteps the bound between quirky and actively harmful. I'd even argue, in the vein of a sibling comment, that willing to label the activist superminorities that run things as mentally ill is very important. They're usually obsessive/perfectionist and workaholics, yet we're supposed to commend them and follow in their lead.
- bluecalm 3y agoIdk man, some good soul corrected a common language error on a site where many authors are not even native English speakers. I am happy there are people willing to do the work for free and that Wikipedia is now better. Hopefully he corrects more errors in the future so I am less likely to pick up incorrect language in the future when I read the articles. Sounds like the right solution you are looking for to me.
- version_five 3y agoThe price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The refrain of the left "what's the big deal, why do you care" is exactly the sort of lazy dismissal that makes people end up resting on their laurels and believing that "one small change" doesn't matter. We need to get better at pushing back at the first small sign of nonsense, and not let things get really bad before people start to care. Ironically, this wikipedia edit is pretty much the most benign current example of a minority controlling a narrative because nobody cares enough to push back. See all the insane modern language policing.