While you could certainly argue that “words mean what people think they mean”, that is not a reason to use words in ways that are CURRENTLY considered wrong, especially not in a lexicon.

If you want to change the meaning of a word, that’s fine, and maybe in a few decades you will succeed, but until you get enough people on board you will only cause confusion.

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.

> the original is still more widespread than the new.

I'm not so sure. Google ngrams has the new usage recently taking over in published books[0], and those usually learn conservative in their usage.

[0] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+o... (this works because ~no one uses comprise in the passive voice in the old meaning)

And use of the suggested (and more correct) alternative "composed of" is more common than both of them combined: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22comprised+o...

Quite

Biweekly is not its own antonym but it means two completely different things (every other week and twice a week) which for me as rendered it useless since you cannot know which meaning is intended.

The best way to deal with this issue is to have body that slows down language changes, then normalise them based on logic and history, something like the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Spanish_Academy.

Yeah the RAE is super useful to end debates on what a word means, thats it. I see no issues with language not "evolving enough". Spanish written/talked a century ago is different than what it's spoken presently, even if the words mean the same.

The present tense is fine in this case.

The author means “composed of” and “consists of” are better phrases to use in general (i.e. according to style guides), not were better phrases exclusively for use on his Wikipedia project. We know this for sure because in the “Quotations” section the author says that he changes “comprised of” to “composed of” or “comprises” in quotations under certain circumstances. He is not wary of using “comprises”.

The author also indicates that this work is still ongoing and meant to be evergreen.

I'm pretty sure it's a joke: those were better alternatives but they're equally valid now and it's time for the author to let the language change and move on.

Yeah, I see that now. Instead of italicizing the word “were” to place emphasis like you did, OP italicized most of the quote and not the word that needed emphasis. Ha.

For this reason, I thought his “ATM clout” statement meant the opposite of what he meant.

> This thread is literally a clout ATM machine for a group comprised of pedants.

That's most high-level Wikipedia editors in a nutshell.

> Words mean whatever a critical mass of people want them to mean.

Yes this is true for natural language, but we don't want Wikipedia to have natural language. We want Wikipedia to have clear and concise language.

There's no governing body that decides how the English language is to be used. It's defined by the people as they write, speak and interpret it.

French for example, is different. They have council with official authority over the language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise

Whether a language has a governing body is irrelevant to whether you should attempt to use clear, easily-understood language. The concerns apply equally in French and English.

Sure i meant to point out that there's not necessarily a difference between natural and clear, concise language.

Yes, there is: the case you were replying to.

This thread is proof of the opposite, in fact. Since neither "composed of" nor "consists of" generate 300+ comment Hacker News threads, they are plainly better.

Well.... tell that to the AP style guide I guess.

Surely their oversight will lead to a decision about which usage to sanction.

You can submit your thoughts here!

https://www.apstylebook.com/ask_the_editors#submit_tab

I think the author is talking about a general scenario, not one of their past edits.

I could agree more! Irregardless of what words actually mean we should just use whatever we want.

Inconceivable!

Surely you mean AT Machine?

I’m a big fan of AT-ATs but I like AT-STs as well.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

Wouldn't this argument cut both ways? Presumably the people that started using the phrase incorrectly were bucking the trend.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

> 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.

"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.

> "Best for readers" is not particularly subjective here.

This is correct. It is exactly the same amount of subjective as the word “best” normally holds. Since there has never been a reproducible measure of best-ness in any objective sense of anything linguistic, it’s squarely in the territory of subjectivity.

If by “best” you mean “understandable to virtually all readers” then “comprised of” and “composed of” are equally “best”

If best-ness is measured by something other than usefulness, then the person that decides the new set of weights with which to weigh best-ness is performing a personal and subjective act. “Orthodoxy to a standard of English as cited by me in context of the year x” does not automatically qualify something for extra best-ness points.

I will gladly entertain the issue of “comprised of” somehow lacking in accuracy with a person that is genuinely confused by its inclusion in a sentence.

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.)

"ATM machine"? RAS syndrome.

Lol out loud!

I literally lolled.

Allow me to quote you back to you. "It’s also not really serverless to begin with, because at the end of the day code is being executed on a physical device that many of us might call a “server” [1]

A critical mass of people have adopted the term serverless. Therefore, the term means whatever they want it to mean, right? No sense in swimming against the tide here, correct?

Yes, words mean what people want them to mean if we're willing to shrug our shoulders and accept the new usage or terminology. That doesn't mean it's never correct to fight against sloppy or non-standard usage in the hopes that it won't be considered standard.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35811741&p=2#35812073

That’s great example! That post is an unserious riff as a response to another post that meant to assert the correctness an individual’s personal definition of a term on what I found to be tenuous pedantic grounds.

I think in the case of "serverless" we still share a common understanding of what the term means, even if the term itself is misleading. This "comprised of" issue is different in that it can easily cause misunderstanding between archaic and modern users of the phrase, where meaning is inverted.

Just because he's a hypocrite doesn't mean he's wrong in this instance.

Semi-related, it always bothered me that we use term wireless for something that still has wires (just not between the endpoints). Though I don't object, or have a better alternative, and I get the logic of calling it wireless.

"Radio" would be a proper replacement for "wireless".

Funnily enough older people in England still call the radio ‘the wireless’!

And my grandad used to say exactly the same thing about wireless radios - 'why do they call it the wireless when it's full of wires!'

The better alternative is cordless, no? At least some products do use that (e.g. cordless mouse). Of course, wireless is now so widely used it might not make sense to fight it :)

I wish I could find the article I read a while ago on the history, but it reminds me of how "nauseous" ended up becoming synonymous with "nauseated."

What is a "clout ATM machine"?

An ATM machine that dispenses clout.

If words don't matter, then ignore the edits. People tend to copy what they see. If they see it written with the original definition, maybe that's what the hivemind will adopt. I don't see a problem with that and I don't see the point in attacking people that care. I'm sure you have things in your life you care about.

No, the point is words do matter, and they mean what people think they mean. Not people from 100 years ago from a prestige university who wrote a dictionary. Languages are fluid, they change and when they do change the present reality is the way the language is spoken.

Obviously there's no universal agreement on which phrase is correct. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having a discussion. I don't know how many people we're even talking about. I'm certain the group that uses "comprises" instead of "comprised of" is not entirely "people from 100 years ago from prestige university who wrote a dictionary."

I understand languages change, which I think is an argument for the edits. If the language pivoted one way, pivoting back is just as valid a change as any other. "Comprised of" and similar phrasing doesn't come out of the ether. They build in popularity as they propagate through writing. There's a big snowball effect. I suspect going forward, you'll see "comprises" or "consists of" because people just copy what they see. Most don't have a strongly formed opinion about which phrase is better.

Personally, I view writing as a craft or skill like any other. Writing is different than speech and always has been. There's a huge qualitative difference in text that has been edited and text that is streamed out of someone's head. The former is almost always clearer to understand. Consequently, if someone points out a grammatical issue to me I say "Oh, TIL, thanks for letting me know" and then I adapt and go on with my life. My bias is to the established norm, not arguing that I'm riding the wave of a linguistic revolution. If I have an open question on something, I'll consult an established resource, just like I would in any other field or craft.

I think the problem is people get embarrassed when they're told they're using the language incorrectly. I get it. I've been there. It's true that English does not have a governing body like French, but I don't see that as a compelling justification for redefining terms or just arguing that nothing can ever be wrong.

How do we decide whether someone is using a word incorrectly, or if we should update our present reality?

Another question: are there places where accuracy and precision are more important than others? Would an encyclopedia be one of those places? I'll reveal my cards here: I believe so.

I am happy that you brought up accuracy _and_ precision!

Somewhat humorously I think a good chunk of the disagreements here come from people treating those concepts interchangeably. Attempts to apply mathematical reasoning to language and interpretation are doomed to fall into similar traps.

I'm enjoying the argument that the meaning of words in an encyclopedia should be subjective.