Quoting
this post.
FrankenGraphics wrote:
Citing wiki, this seems to be a fairly powerful thing to imitate, even for a portion of a song:
This is one of my pet peeves. A wiki is a type of web application/web site for organizing information in a certain easily editable way. One software package of this type is called MediaWiki, though many other similar software packages exist. MediaWiki is the software which powers, among many others, the web site Wikipedia. The name Wikipedia in turn is a portmanteau of
wiki and encyclo
pedia. Many other sites, such as our own
Nesdev wiki and
The Cutting Room Floor, are also examples of wikis. The web site Wikia offers hosting of wiki sites for countless special interests and fandoms. You can easily set up a wiki on your own if you have some web space and need a place to dump information. And so on.
Wikipedia is a proper name. Wiki is not. Saying "Citing wiki" when you mean "Citing Wikipedia" is like saying "Citing dictionary" when you mean "Citing The Oxford Dictionary". No, not even "Citing
the dictionary". "Citing dictionary" is the analogous phrase here. Sounds silly, doesn't it?
Thank you for your attention, your friendly neighborhood grammar Nazi.
Well, you need to take into account that actual popular use will often differ from its factual origin, and that such use will form its own semantic network through repeated practice in a context. You can't turn back the clock, and you can't standardize folk language.
When saying something like "i read this thing on wiki", wikipedia is always implied, and it is clear that it is an abbreviation of wikipedia exactly because the other hypothetical implication would be grammatically incorrect. There's no actual conflict.
When saying "i read this thing on a wiki [page]", on the other hand, you mean just that.
FrankenGraphics wrote:
When saying something like "i read this thing on wiki", wikipedia is always implied, and it is clear that it is an abbreviation of wikipedia exactly because the other hypothetical implication would be grammatically incorrect. There's no actual conflict.
Huh. While I agree with your premise about popular usage being what's important, in my circles, this is not a normal popular usage. The only time I've heard this is from completely non-technical people that completely don't understand what they're talking about. (ie the type of people that call Internet Explorer "the internet")
I would still advocate resisting such changes because it can erase a potential understanding of the etymology of a word. Wiki might become in the public mind nothing more than an abbreviation of Wikipedia, and so the assumption is formed that the concept of wikis is named after Wikipedia, instead of the other way around. It's true that you can't exactly standardize folk language, but everyone has a an opportunity to make a well-reasoned choice about their own use of language, and perhaps even influence others.
I see it all the time on FB and in SMS conversations, and messenger chats. Typically, there's three groups i don't see using it: journalists, people in formal roles, and CS/tech people. Maybe it's less common in english everyday use, i wouldn't know about that.
You might've convinced me to be more mindful of such use on boards like these, but out there, i think it's a lost cause.
<rant>
Actually, i have a few similar pet peeves. Like the use of "propaganda" which essentially just means "a message brought forward/propagated to spread an idea or cause", reading late 19th/early 20th century texts*. But since it has been used in a political context, it's then "a political message brought forward". But again, since it's generally political opponents calling something propaganda, it's "a misleading or outright false message brought forward, and the ones doing it are crooks". Which used as a strategy to delegitimize a claim then becomes analogous with words like "hogwash" and "BS".
When reading old texts using the word, someone not knowing this will think of the modern prejorative value it has gotten, which is so dominant that the word can't be used as originally intended and be expected to be understood.
*It borrows value from an old term in the catholic church; "propaganda fide", or the propagation of faith.
</rant>
1.Language is fluid, not static
2.If a word is used, and you understand its meaning, it is being used properly
dougeff wrote:
2.If a word is used, and you understand its meaning, it is being used properly
Is this where you're supposed to post this thing? (s)
I used to be able to correct people by mentioning Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb, the first wiki, until that wiki was frozen indefinitely in February 2015.
dougeff wrote:
If a word is used, and you understand its meaning, it is being used properly
Sometimes the meaning of a word is not only the meaning that the speaker is trying (and often succeeding) to get across but also the trust or lack thereof associated with an uneducated, inexperienced, or prejudiced speaker. For example:
- "ain't no" means "is not a" but carries the connotation "I'm not speaking carefully based on educated reason. Instead, I'm letting my reactive mind do the talking."
- The N-word means "person of sub-Saharan African descent" but carries the connotation "...who ought to be a slave because of his skin color."
- "Wiki" in this context means "Wikipedia" but also "I am not aware of WikiWikiWeb and MeatBallWiki which directly preceded it nor Fandom powered by Wikia which followed it."
and conversely,
"aint no problem" sounds (to my untrained, non-native ears) like a go-getting fixer or easygoer, while
"it is no problem" sounds more like someone in an argument or serious discussion.
If this is right (is it?), it seems the context of talking about a problem guides the message. My nuance radar might be faulty, though.
Texting/messaging a pal writing "wiki" instead of "wikipedia" provides another context than saying/writing "wiki" in a "neutral"/clinical environment. In this case, SMS/chat lingo is all about getting things across quickly to keep the interruption from the other things you're doing as short as possible.
It's like "I got my mobile fixed" versus "I got my Oldsmobile fixed." One refers to a smartphone (or at least a cell phone of some kind), while the other is a brand of car. Totally different meaning.
I have a few of my own, like people sometimes saying "assembler" (the piece of software that converts assembly-language source code into the machine language the processor understands), when they mean "assembly language."
dougeff wrote:
1.Language is fluid, not static
2.If a word is used, and you understand its meaning, it is being used properly
In general I try to avoid engaging in pointless arguments about definition, but there is one big exception:
If you are writing didactic text, or reference material, it is worth debating what words mean so that you can choose words that express the ideas accurately and clearly. Ironically, this exception tends to come up a lot when maintaining a
wiki.
In conversation, however, you're trying to communicate an idea to one or more people. If they get it, you've succeeded. I think it's generally impolite to point out someone's impure/loose choice of word unless you were
actually confused by it (or honestly believe someone else in the conversation is), or in a rarer case if you know they are learning the language and wish to have their mistakes corrected. It's pretty much an identical situation to pointing out someone's spelling mistakes.
Sometimes it's fun to talk about what words mean, though, but that's best done as its own conversation (like this thread), otherwise it's often an impolite digression.
Also, if you'd like to be tactful you can feign confusion: "Which Wiki was it on?" vs. "You should have said Wikipedia."
Usually attempting to understand the idea someone is trying to express results in a healthier conversation than criticizing the way they tried to express it.
FrankenGraphics wrote:
and conversely,
"aint no problem" sounds (to my untrained, non-native ears) like a go-getting fixer or easygoer, while
"it is no problem" sounds more like someone in an argument or serious discussion.
If this is right (is it?), it seems the context of talking about a problem guides the message. My nuance radar might be faulty, though.
To me (Urban Canadian English native speaker), "ain't no problem" sounds for-lack-of-a-better-word trashy and uneducated; it immediately makes me think of someone from a rural area, especially the American South - which is awful stereotyping, I know there are plenty of intelligent countryfolk and Southeners and just because someone has an accent from those areas doesn't make them trashy or uneducated! But those sorts of cultural and linguistic biases are deeply encoded into North American culture, sadly.
"isn't a problem" is pretty neutral and what I'd use in all but the most formal of settings; "it's no problem" is slightly more casual - I probably wouldn't use it in writing but is likely what I'd say conversationally. "It is not a problem" sounds almost satirically formal, robotic, and unnatural to me, particularly if spoken without a posh British accent. Weirdly, "it is no problem", despite just being an expansion of "it's no problem", doesn't sound right to me
at all, I think because the first half is extremely formal but the latter half is very casual and grammatically "incorrect".
hah, i even meant "it is not a", but wrote "it is no" without registering the change on the fly... which should be proof of my inadequateness judging the tone.
I'm more bugged by the fact that most Wikipedia citations are fake resources that solely exist to make Wikipedia look more credible than they really are.
It's obvious when each cited article is a word for word copy of each other, and happen to cite Wikipedia as a resource.
rainwarrior wrote:
I think it's generally impolite to point out someone's impure/loose choice of word unless you were actually confused by it (or honestly believe someone else in the conversation is), or in a rarer case if you know they are learning the language and wish to have their mistakes corrected. It's pretty much an identical situation to pointing out someone's spelling mistakes.
The point was not to criticize FrankenGraphics, but the use of the expression itself. It's not directed at any single person. I only quoted his post as a reference of what inspired me to post the rant. I first thought about making a quick remark in that thread but then decided to break it out to its own thread, as that's likely what tepples would have done anyway, if it had generated any significant amount of discussion there.
psycopathicteen wrote:
I'm more bugged by the fact that most Wikipedia citations are fake resources that solely exist to make Wikipedia look more credible than they really are.
It's obvious when each cited article is a word for word copy of each other, and happen to cite Wikipedia as a resource.
Are you describing
citogenesis? Does that actually happen?
At the very least, wikipedia is riddled with sources of weak or no merit. It's even worse in small, non-english versions. Lack of citing everywhere, and all too often it's an obviously summarized, truncated, and freely interpreted/winged translation/mistranslation of the english version.
Then again, a traditional dictionary is completely oblique. Is an article drawn from research? a single source? how much of the authors' interpretation has bled into the description without telling so?
FrankenGraphics wrote:
Then again, a traditional dictionary is completely oblique.
Or
opaque?
I must've confused those two for my whole life.
nitro2k01 wrote:
The point was not to criticize FrankenGraphics, but the use of the expression itself. It's not directed at any single person. I only quoted his post as a reference of what inspired me to post the rant. I first thought about making a quick remark in that thread but then decided to break it out to its own thread, as that's likely what tepples would have done anyway, if it had generated any significant amount of discussion there.
Yes, this is one of the least impolite ways to do it. I tried to clarify that but I realize I opened with the accusation of impoliteness. :S
Just to assure; I didn't take it as personal critique either.
Speaking of critique, i'll take the opportunity to say that i'm perfectly fine with anyone correcting my language on these boards, if they want to.
Well, if you are complaining about that then what about people using english words in other languages ?
I've heard for example often people saying in a french language conversation "it's obvious" using the english word obvious even though there is a word which is 100% equivalent of it's meaning in french language - but they use an english word to sound "young and cool", it's extremely annoying.
I am however not complaining about importing english words if there is no direct equivalent, but this should really be avoided when there is a direct equivalent.
Another thing which is a bit annoying is people writing down mails writing exactly what they'd say if they were talking instead of using more proper language/grammar. Is it really that complicated to use proper structured sentences when writing something down ?
I'm not entirely sure it's just to sound young and cool. In anthropology, the term "creolization" has been extended to work as an analogy for the mixing of languages and cultures when meeting on a new platform. Just replace "the new world" with "world wide web", on which english is the dominant language as far as people from different nations talking to each other is concerned.
In teenage and early 20s years, i heard the phrase "men obv" which is a sweded version of "well, obv", which in turn of course is a chat abbreviation for "well, obviously". Overusage of this phrase is perhaps something you'd tie to youthful edgyness, so it's not the best example, but my point is that we're seeing a creolization of sorts where chat speak, english, and native languages are cross-pollinating. The effect should be most recognizeable in other languages since english is the main mode of communication.
It's not wrong in itself, it's just informal. Though ever so often, use of informal language often leak into formal use, eventually. In the early 90's, the swedish state made a fruitless effort to standardize the term "elpost" (meaning electric post) and insist state employees use the word, which sits better in swedish, but as it turned out, people preferred saying and writing anything but this specific variation. E-mail, emejl, mejl, epost, e-post. Throughout the 90s, you could also see people writing/saying ebrev (e-letter), but i think that use has ceased completely. These have since long been so integrated in everyday use that "elpost" sounds outright wrong and confusing.
Bregalad wrote:
Another thing which is a bit annoying is people writing down mails writing exactly what they'd say if they were talking instead of using more proper language/grammar. Is it really that complicated to use proper structured sentences when writing something down ?
Yes, if the intent is not to sound pretentious, particularly when the recipient reads the mail aloud.
The other reason is the difficulty of revising text on a smartphone or tablet computer not connected to an external keyboard. I don't know whether other users experience this, but when I write "proper structured sentences", I often don't fill in a paragraph from start to finish. Instead, I type phrases as they come to me, moving the insertion point to where in the sentence they belong with Ctrl+Left and Ctrl+Right on a computer's keyboard and occasionally rearranging them using Shift+Ctrl+Left to select text, Ctrl+X, move insertion point, Ctrl+V. When rearranging a sentence requires changing a word's inflection (such as
copy vs.
copies) or derivation (such as
revise vs.
revision), Ctrl+Left and Ctrl+Right make moving the insertion point to the end of a word fairly consistent. But touch-driven mobile devices make it a chore to move the insertion point, particularly to the start or end of a word because the space character's glyph is so narrow. This makes going back and editing what I've written less practical. Other users may adapt by typing in the same stream-of-consciousness mode in which they talk or even using the operating system's speech-to-text input method.
Quote:
Yes, if the intent is not to sound pretentious, particularly when the recipient reads the mail aloud.
In French language the difference between formal writing and informal talking is huge, probably more than in English language (although I could be wrong - I am unfamiliar with spoken English). Using formal language when writing a letter or e-mail is expected, it would never sound "pretentious". I'm not talking about texting but about true, important mails.
Quote:
The other reason is the difficulty of revising text on a smartphone or tablet computer not connected to an external keyboard.
Those devices are unsuited for writing anyway. They are meant for texting and/or "checking if there's something new" mainly.
Though some people have nothing but a pad. Especially some kids and teenagers. I even saw people taking notes on pads at university. How they manage to keep the pace or how that could be better than pen and paper, i don't know. You'd need to write your papers on a regular computer later.
iOS could easily have had letter/word left/right jump keys in the white field right above the keyboard, but it doesn't. Such a miss, IMO.
Bregalad wrote:
Quote:
The other reason is the difficulty of revising text on a smartphone or tablet computer not connected to an external keyboard.
Those devices are unsuited for writing anyway.
Someone who owns only a device "unsuited for writing" must either use a device "unsuited for writing" for writing or not write at all.
Bregalad wrote:
They are meant for texting and/or "checking if there's something new" mainly.
Then what's the appropriate device on which to reply when "checking if there's something new" returns "There is something new, and I want to reply, but I won't be home for an hour or more"? Or "There is something new, and I want to reply, but the only PC to which I have ready access is at a library, and the closest library branch doesn't open until Monday, which is two days from now" (source: ACPL.info)? A solution involve buying a home PC might not be practical for children under 16, who are legally ineligible to work as an employee in most occupations (source: child labor laws of the several U.S. states).
Agreed. Especially with the word 'citing'-- if you haven't provided enough information to unambiguously identify the source, that's not a proper citation.
Here's another example I came across today in a video about Nintendo Switch docks.
"If you'd like to try to do some detective work yourself, I'll leave the SlimPort wiki in the description."
Does this mean the Wikipedia article on something called SlimPort, or is this a wiki set up to discuss video standards or the endeavour of getting video out etc to work on the Switch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pds1nwSlBvA&t=266