“I feel sometimes that this motivation feels a little bit fuzzy, or a little bit negative in some ways… Like, one of my favorite Wikipedians of all time is this user called Giraffedata,” he says. “He has, like, 15,000 edits, and he’s done almost nothing except fix the incorrect use of ‘comprised of’ in articles.”

https://medium.com/backchannel/meet-the-ultimate-wikignome-10508842caad

Giraffedata is something of a superstar among the tiny circle of people who closely monitor Wikipedia, one of the most popular websites in the English-speaking world. About 8 million English Wikipedia articles are visited every hour, yet only a tiny fraction of readers click the ‘edit’ button in the top right corner of every page. And only 30,000 or so people make at least five edits per month to the quickly growing site.

Giraffedata—a 51-year-old software engineer named Bryan Henderson—is among the most prolific contributors, ranking in the top 1,000 most active editors. While some Wikipedia editors focus on adding content or vetting its accuracy, and others work to streamline the site’s grammar and style, generally few, if any, adopt Giraffedata’s approach to editing: an unrelenting, multi-year project to fix exactly one grammatical error.

>>And only 30,000 or so people make at least five edits per month

And they are mainly comprised of nutters.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>And only 30,000 or so people make at least five edits per month

And they are mainly comprised of nutters.

No.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>And only 30,000 or so people make at least five edits per month

And they are mainly comprised of nutters.

I wonder if there is someone out there in cyberland who is changing all the corrected “comprised of” corrections back to incorrect.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>And only 30,000 or so people make at least five edits per month

And they are mainly comprised of nutters.

Would you say: “And they are mainly included of nutters”? No? Well there you are then.

Bubblecar said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>And only 30,000 or so people make at least five edits per month

And they are mainly comprised of nutters.

Would you say: “And they are mainly included of nutters”? No? Well there you are then.

You got it Bubbles.

I’ll admit that I didn’t even know that ‘comprised of’ was a grammatical error, and have probably used it in quite a few technical reports.

sibeen said:

I’ll admit that I didn’t even know that ‘comprised of’ was a grammatical error, and have probably used it in quite a few technical reports.

What is correct? consisting of?

Composed of, apparently.

sibeen said:

I’ll admit that I didn’t even know that ‘comprised of’ was a grammatical error, and have probably used it in quite a few technical reports.

People use it unthinkingly because it sounds like “composed of”, but comprised just means “included (past tense)” and shouldn’t be followed by “of”.

sibeen said:

Composed of, apparently.

MS Word grammar checker set on Technical is OK with comprised of.

Tamb said:

sibeen said:

I’ll admit that I didn’t even know that ‘comprised of’ was a grammatical error, and have probably used it in quite a few technical reports.

What is correct? consisting of?

In the interest of saving himself those precious minutes, Henderson is more than happy to explain the trouble with ‘comprised of.’ Take the following sentence, for example:

The Wikipedia editorial community is comprised of many interesting people.

The problem is rooted in confusion over the verbs ‘to comprise’ and ‘to compose.’ Most style manuals advise against this usage. Better alternatives to the above example include the following:

The Wikipedia editorial community is composed of many interesting people.

Or:

The Wikipedia editorial community consists of many interesting people.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Tamb said:

sibeen said:

I’ll admit that I didn’t even know that ‘comprised of’ was a grammatical error, and have probably used it in quite a few technical reports.

What is correct? consisting of?

In the interest of saving himself those precious minutes, Henderson is more than happy to explain the trouble with ‘comprised of.’ Take the following sentence, for example:

The Wikipedia editorial community is comprised of many interesting people.

The problem is rooted in confusion over the verbs ‘to comprise’ and ‘to compose.’ Most style manuals advise against this usage. Better alternatives to the above example include the following:

The Wikipedia editorial community is composed of many interesting people.

Or:

The Wikipedia editorial community consists of many interesting people.

It’s OK now. The “of” is the culprit.

• The Wikipedia editorial community consists of many interesting people.

Would this work:

The Wikipedia editorial community comprises many interesting people.

Example of correct use of comprised: “The Beatles comprised John Lenin, Paul McCarthy, Rolf Harris and Wingo Starr.”

sibeen said:

I’ll admit that I didn’t even know that ‘comprised of’ was a grammatical error,

+1

What is the correct term?

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

I’ll admit that I didn’t even know that ‘comprised of’ was a grammatical error,

+1

What is the correct term?

It’s in the thread ;) and was just posted by Bubblecar

Dropbear said:

It’s in the thread ;) and was just posted by Bubblecar

Yes. I should have read the full thread before posting.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Dropbear said:

It’s in the thread ;) and was just posted by Bubblecar

Yes. I should have read the full thread before posting.

Yes you should of had of.
However since it’s the feast day of St. Gilbert of Sempringham I’ll grant you a special dispensation in his name.
Go now my son and sin no more.

To whomever wikipedaholic puts messages such as:

“This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.”

“The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.”

“This article’s tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia’s guide to writing better articles for suggestions.”

… on nearly every wikipedia page STOP IT! You’re stuffing up the whole of wikipedia! I for one will support any vote to have you banned.

Why Wikipedia’s grammar vigilante is wrong

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/05/why-wikipedias-grammar-vigilante-is-wrong

Of course, the English language is almost entirely comprised of phrases that would once have been considered to be grammatical mistakes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Of course, the English language is almost entirely comprised of phrases that would once have been considered to be grammatical mistakes.

True enough, but some degree of discipline is required to keep it functioning as a reasonably precise and versatile communication tool. The line between pedantry and helpful correction can be somewhat fuzzy :)