One Man's Quest To Rid Wikipedia of Exactly One Grammatical Mistake 425
An anonymous reader writes with this Fascinating profile of one particular Wikipedia editor Giraffedata (a 51-year-old software engineer named Bryan Henderson), who has spent the last seven years correcting only the incorrect use of "comprised of" on Wikipedia. Using a code to crawl for uses of "comprised of" throughout all of Wiki's articles, he'll then go in and manually correct them (for example, using "consists of" or "composed of") and has made over 47,000 edits to date.
Monomania (Score:5, Funny)
Comprised of the ability to withstand the urge of doing anything else but this.
Re:Monomania (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Monomania (Score:5, Insightful)
While some people may find his actions cromulent, I personally think his work embiggens us all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a perfectly cromulent pastime.
Re:Monomania (Score:5, Funny)
Irregardless of you're opinion its still a waist of time for all intensive purposes.
Re:Monomania (Score:5, Funny)
I don't get why we tolerate people that have vices that are actually far more harmful. But an improper use of spelling or grammar, causes people with such an uproar.
My personal hypothesis bases on no facts whatsoever. Is that teachers in the attempt in instill proper grammar and other language skills, actually went to far and caused people to see grammar and language as a moral issue, and not just a skill, to insure that ideas are commonly understood.
Many of these people going after language issues, are often just fighting the natural migration of language where the meaning is well understood and isn't affecting peoples understanding of the information.
Re: (Score:3)
My guess is that they are attempting to direct language. For instance spelling bees in Spanish would be absurd since Spanish has had a pretty vigorously defended spelling system. English has always(Old-English) been (Proto-Germanic) a bit of a hodgepodge (Anglo-French) of disparate (latin) bits and pieces (French). As a result there is no consistency. I agree that it would be nice to clean up and standardize our spelling/grammar but obviously it's a futile task.
Re:Monomania (Score:4, Informative)
My personal hypothesis bases on no facts whatsoever. Is that teachers in the attempt in instill proper grammar and other language skills, actually went to far...
Corrected: ... actually went too far...
Sorry, given the story topic, I couldn't help myself.
Re:Monomania (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Monomania (Score:4, Interesting)
Apples and oranges.
Tolerating people with vices falls under a different category than tolerating grammar blunders.
Some things in languages are subject to change, yes. Random example: "all things considered" versus "all things considering". While the latter is considered as being incorrect, it is actually correct in some cases, when, let's say, you weigh components of an equation while building your own conclusion. "All things considered" technically refers to your train of thought ending before you draw a conclusion (implying you have enough time to do so), while "all things considering" means that the situation is ongoing and based on current set of events you decide to take *this* course of action.
Language is everchanging, yes, but some of its components need to be represented correctly to eliminate inconsistencies, especially where said inconsistencies might give a totally different meaning to what's being said, effectively corrupting conveyed information. Another reason is more of a personal perception: whoever consistently makes blatant mistakes is much more likely to not respect both themselves and the audience. Shortly put, they're less likely to be trusted by me, not in the "I won't lend you money" sense, but in the "it's riskier to do business with you" sense.
I don't care if the person next to whom I party is less literate but I do care if I am supposed to do business with them. Just today I cut a small deal with a company which sent me an e-mail telling me they extended their offer until 31st of February. This mistake meant (to me) they're prone to overlooking shit. If one can't properly verify a 3 row e-mail, how am I supposed to trust them to properly verify 100K lines of code?
So yes, shortly put it's about self esteem, attention to details and how prepared one is to care about details, learn proper ways of doing things and not mess up because "hey, it happens".
Disclaimer: English is not my native language.
I guess he missed this one (Score:3, Funny)
he'll then go in and manually corrects them
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Similarity (Score:5, Interesting)
This twitter account is similar: Correcting users on Twitter who type "sneak peak" with "sneak peek", we have "Stealth Mountain". https://twitter.com/stealthmountain
Not sure either of these qualify as 'news', but what the hell, it's a slow news day anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/sneak_peek
That's because something like half of the stories (Score:2)
on /. these days are copy/pasted submissions from Hacker News [ycombinator.com] anywhere from a few hours to a few days later.
The meaning of language changes (Score:2)
Hasn't anyone tried to verbalize that to him?
Re: (Score:2)
Also known as The Regex Execution Man (Score:3)
Next up: The Wget Guy manually downloads a "hand-tailored" copy of wikipedia and sells it for living on DVDs.
Oh wait.
He needs to correct dictionary.com next (Score:2)
Idioms
4. be comprised of, to consist of; be composed of:
"The sales network is comprised of independent outlets and chain stores."
Speaking of mistakes (Score:5, Informative)
Using a code to crawl for uses of "comprised of" throughout all of Wiki's articles
Wikipedia is not "Wiki." Wikipedia is a wiki. There are many wikis in the world, and they are not all Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the publication, and wiki is the medium. "All of Wiki's articles" is like saying "All of Newspaper's articles."
Maybe I can get away with this offtopic pedantic comment since this whole article is about a guy spending years trying to fix small errors. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Using a code to crawl for uses of "comprised of" throughout all of Wiki's articles
Wikipedia is not "Wiki." Wikipedia is a wiki. There are many wikis in the world, and they are not all Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the publication, and wiki is the medium. "All of Wiki's articles" is like saying "All of Newspaper's articles."
Maybe I can get away with this offtopic pedantic comment since this whole article is about a guy spending years trying to fix small errors. :)
To be completely pedantic, you don't actually know that he confined his search to just Wikipedia. The article revolves around Wikipedia but he might be crusading across the entire internet, for all you know. Many other Wiki systems allow user contributions just like Wikipedia.
Re:Speaking of mistakes (Score:5, Informative)
" There are many wikis in the world, and they are not all Wikipedia."
This is true. "Wiki" is a girls name in Aotearoa. It is the shortened form of Wikitoria
Re: (Score:2)
You need to find yourself a girl, mate! (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Well all have a hobby (Score:2)
I suppose that is his.
Rather see different edits (Score:2)
How about getting rid of "this light bulb uses 3 times less power than this other one!". It's not mathematically correct to say. You can day "bulb a uses 30% of the power of bulb b" or "bulb b requires three times the power of bulb a", but saying that something is three times less just makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
but saying that something is three times less just makes no sense
Generally, yes. But there are times that a variation of that construction is useful. When Thing B is being described as already (for example) using less energy than Thing A, and you then bring up the even more efficient Thing C, it becomes meaningful, even useful, to say that Thing C, uses even less energy than Thing B (both being compared, even if indirectly, to Thing A).
But in almost every use that generally comes up, you're right. It's far more useful to say, "Think C consumes a third of the energy t
Said the summary with the grammatical error... (Score:2)
47,000 Edits, 10 articles affected (Score:2)
How many of those edits were accepted fixes, and how many were epic edit war battles fought tooth and nail over 100 reverts with the Wikirati elite editor brigade?
Re: (Score:2)
Always annoyed me but... (Score:2)
I've known for many years that "comprise" (usually used as "comprised", "comprises", or "comprising" depending on context) means the same as "composed of", so that "comprised of" means "composed of of" which is ridiculous.
BUT, this has been so heavily misused for so long, and increasingly even in respectable publications that should know better and by otherwise skilled and educated writers, that I'm starting to give up. Not to the point of ever saying "comprised of" myself, but to the point of not bothering
LOL ... (Score:2)
So, some Aspie is on a nerd quest and this is news worthy?
I bet the women swoon, and he's fun at parties -- or, possibly, the other one.
Dude, seriously, have you not learned to not broadcast this stuff in 51 years? If you're high functioning to hold a job, surely you've figured out to dial back the "dork" a little in public.
Now, excuse me, I have to go sort my pencils and re-stack the toilet paper.
This is obnoxious behavior from the editor (Score:2)
Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And the editors of the articles chose to use comprised of. No one editor should be exerting such undue influence on the whole of the Wikipedia articles.
It is not spam.... but I would put it on equal footing to an editor deciding they don't like links to articles on a certain website, then searching for every article referencing it in order to move the link to the bottom of the list.
Clearly the widespread usage means there is not any broad
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we can't have nice things.
Internet Heros (Score:2)
and one crawler, comprised of other rules, followi (Score:2, Funny)
he's not alone (Score:2)
The Wikipedia Typo Team [wikipedia.org] has a lot of people who "adopt" particular misspellings by periodically searching for them and fixing them. I've been doing it since 2006 and I'm a little short of 100,000 edits. Of course I am not quite so fixated as Giraffedata - I also work on other projects, collect interesting vandalism [blogspot.com], and create the occasional article.
There's plenty of room to contribute in small ways. People who mainly do things like this are referred to as WikiGnomes [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Your site is amazing. Thanks for linking - just too bad you apparently haven't done anything with it since 2013?
you have a sad life when... (Score:2)
...you can (and should) be replaced by a RegEx.
Not "incorrect" English (Score:2)
This is a mistake many programmers (like Mr. Henderson) make. Human languages are not like programming languages, where there's a compiler that either accepts it or doesn't. There are no rulebooks for English, and many (if not most) of the supposed "rules" you may have been taught actually have more exceptions than exemplars. The only real rule is that your target audience understands you without being distracted by your weird way of saying it.
So I'm sorry, but pretty much any change that requires referen
Re: (Score:2)
"Comprised" has become spoiled, to use the lexicographer's term for it. The proper use of it ("The USSR comprised 15 republics") sounds pedantic. Improper use ("Salt is comprised of sodium and chlorine") is lame, because the word "composed" is so similar and unarguably proper. At best, they're synonyms; at worst, that redundancy looks foolish.
So it ends up being not used at all in formal speech until it has completed its turn to its new meaning. And that new meaning is going to be a slightly prissy-sounding
Re: (Score:2)
So it ends up being not used at all in formal speech until it has completed its turn to its new meaning. And that new meaning is going to be a slightly prissy-sounding synonym for "composed".
The turn has completed. Much like the use of "hacker" to refer primarily to people who break computer security measures, the meaning has changed and no amount of spirited railing against it is going to change that.
What a WASTE of time (Score:3)
Languages come in two types: Living and Dead. Dead languages have solid grammatical rules that must be obeyed. Living languages are in flux, constantly evolving. What this person did is NO different than a British person going through all of Wikipedia and replacing the word Humor with Humour or Favorite with Favourite.
Words and Grammar CHANGE. Enough people use the word AINT, it gets imported into the language.
Why? Because living languages are comprised of words and phrases that take their meaning from the common usage, not from a book. If people understand a meaning, that is the meaning.
There is no language police outlawing people, no punishment - except for public disapproval and opinion - for misuse. This guy is not the public and has no right to disapprove of how the public uses the language.
Re:What a WASTE of time (Score:5, Informative)
Words and Grammar CHANGE. Enough people use the word AINT, it gets imported into the language.
You've spelled "ain't" wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind any words or phrases which have become so largely and collectively m
Let the trolling being (Score:3)
Now that this is publicly known you can be sure there will be trolls who will mess with the guy.
symmetric relation (Score:2)
Vogon Poetry (Score:2)
But but but, "comprised of" is Vogon Poetry!
The original Grammar Nazi? (Score:2)
I would have to say that a venture like this is (at least) a massive waste of time. For all its good, there are loads of problems, quirks, inconsistencies, and unnecessary complexities within the English language already. Nit picking a minor aspect such as this is like worrying about the quality of the window washer fluid you use for a car whilst ignoring the incre
Next up... (Score:3)
Global search: "utilize"
Replace with: "use"
Global search: "baited breath"
Replace with: "bated breath"
I could do this ALL day, man.
Re:Next up... (Score:4, Informative)
I would, literally, also change most occurrences of literally to figuratively.
Then there are news articles about people who get evacuated, and not even in a hospital. If you can't substitute the word "empty", don't use the word evacuated.
And this is a lost battle, but a burglar burgles, he doesn't burglarize, unless he turns others into burglars.
Similar with ruggedized, which more often than not should be replaced with rugged.
But perhaps most of all, when people write "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less".
My pet peeve: (Score:2)
My pet peeve would have to be using "compliment" and "complement" interchangeably.
Re:My pet peeve: (Score:5, Funny)
Oh good, I should be safe on that one. I use "condiment" in place of both of those.
Get this man a job at SLASHDOT (Score:2)
With the proviso that he turn the usually butchered summaries into actual English sentences! We're not asking for much, just an actual summary that doesn't contain more than 30 errors.
Language changes (Score:2)
Basically... (Score:2)
Great idea! (Score:4)
I think I will go on a quest to get rid of as many occurances of "X times LESS than ..." as possible.
Good (Score:2)
I applaud this man's efforts. Copy editing and proper English have gone down the tubes in writing today. It's become so bad that even major news outlets are publishing egregious errors in headlines and teasers, as well as in article body content, daily and at an alarming rate. Sad to see that there is no higher standard anymore and everyone writing like a 14-year old, C-level English student.
I concur (Score:2)
Re:I concur (Score:5, Informative)
This guy's my hero - misuse of "comprised" is a pet peeve of mine.
Despite sounding vaguely similar to "composed", it's not a synonym. Comprised is a near-synonym for included, but implies totality. "The band comprised a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer" means that was the entirety of the band. Since so few people actually understand this, I tend to avoid the word.
Re:I concur (Score:5, Informative)
That's funny, because every online dictionary I consulted said that it was grammatically correct to use "comprise" as a synonym for "compose." In fact Merriam Webster [merriam-webster.com] has this to say:
Sense 3 : compose, constitute
Usage Discussion of COMPRISE
Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.
Re: (Score:2)
it's fine that they are sinonims, but you can't say "comprised of". That is poor grammar. You can say "comprises" in place of "is composed of".
Re: (Score:3)
"It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word."
-- Andrew Jackson
Re: (Score:3)
That says it is being used more often, not that it is grammatically correct. Languages naturally change over time, and this is probably a good example of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually a huge fan of using "comprises" or "comprising" as a synonym of composed of.
Re: (Score:2)
The error is that comprise does not take of, unlike compose and consist.
Re:I concur (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's sort of the inverse of composed:
* My team comprises X, Y, and Z
* My team that is composed of X, Y, and Z (or, awkwardly, X, Y, and Z compose my team).
If it were UML, the arrow would go the other way.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you seem to have an opinion on the subject, I have a separate issue with the usage of comprise. Why is it that "The band comprised a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer" is the preferred form over "A guitarist, bassist and drummer comprise the band"? It seems to me that subject and object are backward in the first. It makes more sense that the components are collectively acting to form the whole rather than the whole (which does not exist before the action) acting to compose itself of the componen
Re: (Score:2)
This guy's my hero - misuse of "comprised" is a pet peeve of mine.
Despite sounding vaguely similar to "composed", it's not a synonym. Comprised is a near-synonym for included, but implies totality. "The band comprised a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer" means that was the entirety of the band. Since so few people actually understand this, I tend to avoid the word.
I believe you have that backwards. "Comprising" is open-ended, and means "including at least". "Consisting of" implies totality. At least in the legal world.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a pet peeve of mine as well, but it's a small pet.
I don't want it to affect my holy war on the criminal misuse of the apostrophe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. All of his edits have already been reverted by crazy Wikipedia editors.
Re: (Score:2)
what happens when oxford announces that "comprised of" now also means "made up of" ? Is he going to revert all his edits?
No. Some people feel that there is nothing wrong with "comprised of", and it should be tolerated, but nobody claims that it is actually superior to the alternatives. So there would be no reason to revert.
Re: (Score:2)
what happens when oxford announces that "comprised of" now also means "made up of" ?
All existing copies of The Oxford Dictionary will burst into flame, the Seven Seals will be opened, the Four Horsemen will arrive, and the Apocalypse will ensue.
Pro tip: when you're tempted to write a grammatical booger like comprised of, think for a moment and use something else.
Re:language fluidity (Score:4, Insightful)
what happens when oxford announces that "comprised of" now also means "made up of" ?
They already have [oxforddictionaries.com].
Re:ATM machine ..? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a common enough idiom.
There are many common idioms that are used incorrectly in conversation or casual writing. But that doesn't mean they should be used in formal writing, such as an encyclopedia.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many common idioms that are used incorrectly in conversation or casual writing. But that doesn't mean they should be used in formal writing, such as an encyclopedia.
So, you're saying there should be no compromise of this principal.
Re: (Score:2)
*principle
What? No compromise?
Re: (Score:2)
I just lost a tone of brain cells
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ATM machine ..? (Score:5, Funny)
It's a common enough idiom.
There are many common idioms that are used incorrectly in conversation or casual writing. But that doesn't mean they should be used in formal writing, such as an encyclopedia.
Well met, friend, for thou speakst great sooth! Many people have I encountered who are such dullards as to employ incorrectly the English tongue. 'Tis tragedy of the vtmost that the youth of our times know not how the language should properly speak itself. A gay fellow would I be were my fellow man to renew his acquaintance with the King's English.
Alas! but I must forsake thy gentle companie, for mine friends await me in a local hostelrie, and so must I away! Parting is such sweet sorry. Anon, good sir, anon!
Re: (Score:2)
Comprise means include. If you can replace one word with the other and the phrase still makes sense, then you're using the word correctly. The first two dictionary examples you provided pass that test:
The Soviet Union included several socialist republics.
The advisory board includes six members.
But the third one does not:
Seminars and lectures included the day's activities.
Re: (Score:2)
Hit enter too soon. The fourth example fails even more than the others:
The sales network is included of independent outlets and chain stores.
Patent Grammar Too (Score:5, Informative)
Yep. I work in patents, where a small incorrect use of grammar or terms of art can mean losing millions of dollars. The classic case in point:
Patent A:
"A vehicle comprising 3 wheels and a motor."
Patent B:
"A vehicle consisting of 3 wheels and a motor."
Assuming it is 1700 or something and no prior-art exists,
Patent A can go on to claim 4-wheeled motorized vehicles (since a 4-wheeled vehicle does after all have 3 wheels), 3-wheeled vehicles with shark fins, whatever. "Comprising" is open-end and interpreted as "it has at least this," or as you say, "including."
Patent B is strictly limited to 3 wheels and a motor, no more and no less. If a competitor uses 4 wheels, or adds shark fins, or two motors, then it isn't covered by the patent. "Consisting of" is a closed phrase interpreted as "having exactly."
The incorrect grammar "comprised of" would be an ambiguity, and as such, interpreted in the strictest way -- limiting as in Patent B.
It may seem worrisome that scientists and engineers of all people -- some of the absolute worst butchers of language and grammar out there! -- are the ones who become patent agents or patent attorneys, but all-in-all, the ones who do so tend to be some of the smartest folks I've met. You need to be well-rounded to do the job.
Re:Patent Grammar Too (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oh, thank the gods. . . . (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, very crazy of him to be focused on the cause of his own crazy rather than yours!
Re: (Score:2)
When you decide what to do in your free time, do you prefer things you enjoy, or do you worry about making a bigger contribution to the educational level of the country ?
Re: (Score:2)
Anything on this level is a complete waste of time and one's limited lifespan.
...says the person commenting about his activity on an internet forum. ;^>
Re: (Score:2)
I see this a lot. People know one thing, and want to make sure that everyone else are made miserable.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows? Maybe it will get easier, because people will become more aware of the error.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious: What's wrong with medium.com?
I look at it once in a while, but don't know much about it other than what I've found to be a fairly attractive layout.
Aside from that, it's just a blog platform, right? Anyone can write an article and if it gets any traffic, Medium's editors or algorithms promote it, if I understand correctly
Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Challenge accepted: I will write a script that locates ambiguous usage of commas, and will replace them with the correct oxford comma usage. I bet I can surpass his edit count in a couple of weeks. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Sir, that is uncouth, uncivilized and incorrect.
Re:Edit count whoring (Score:5, Funny)
Sir, that is uncouth, uncivilized and incorrect.
There are legitimate grammar and usage debates, with cogent arguments on either side. But the Oxford Comma is the One True Way. The best argument I've ever heard against it is, "Well, it saves a few drops of ink on the printed page." Anti-Oxford Comma heathens should be drawn, quartered, and burned at the stake for befouling the language.
Re:Edit count whoring (Score:4, Interesting)
The best argument I've ever heard against it is, "Well, it saves a few drops of ink on the printed page."
And yet you place the period inside the quotation marks. Foolish American!
Re: (Score:2)
Challenge accepted: I will write a script that locates ambiguous usage of commas, and will replace them with the correct oxford comma usage. I bet I can surpass his edit count in a couple of weeks. :)
A panda bear walks into a bar; eats, shoots and leaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One man's rebuttal (Score:5, Funny)
And I will join your allied fight against Grammar National Socialism by conducting a concurrent invasion of the beaches of literature and retaking ground from the fascists who mistakenly think that it is grammatically incorrect to begin sentences with conjunctions. And we will win this fight!