1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Red Hal » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:51 pm UTC

@asdfzxc I'm not surprised. Is vandalising wikipædia under the misguided assumption that you are somehow enhancing the reputation of xkcd and people who enjoy it really something you (plural) believe to be a worthwhile activity? Even if not and it's just an excuse for a bit of mayhem, is it a good idea to make one of the good things to come out of the internet a little less "good"?

Wikipædia and its various offshoots deserve our respect, our help and - maybe occasionally - even a donation or two when funds allow. It doesn't deserve what amounts to vandalism in the name of a (no matter how cleverly written) comic.

@rmsgrey, there certainly is a "culture" within the active editing community, but the same could be said of here, reddit, or indeed any grouping. Whether or not you agree with it, there is little to be gained from working against it just for the embuggerance factor.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:57 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:the synopsis makes clever use of it in a sentence talking about "taking Star Trek into darkness", but capitalizing the latter two words (that is to say, taking the Star Trek franchise to dark places).


I wonder if anyone has ever mentioned a certain movie that shows the universe of Star Trek the wrath of Khan Noonien Singh?

Anyway, things like this are the reason why I don't bother editing Wikipedia, and only very rarely contribute to talk pages - there's a community of active editors who have achieved a consensus on how the site works, and outsiders are either assimilated or driven off...


You know, in the released synopsis, they capitalized "Into" even though it is part of the sentence.

Paramount wrote:In Summer 2013, pioneering director J.J. Abrams will deliver an explosive action thriller that takes Star Trek Into Darkness.

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis.


I can't understand why anybody is taking that synopsis as proof the "I" should be lower-case.

hughperkins
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:47 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:06 pm UTC

I can't understand why anybody is taking that synopsis as proof the "I" should be lower-case.


Well, I think the logic goes like this:
  • the synopsis shows that 'into' is part of a larger sentence, and not the start of a subtitle
  • according to wikipedia standards, that means it should not be capitalized

I dont agree with the logic, because I think the first premise is flawed, but I think that's the logic they are following.

That, and 'if we can't reach a consensus for change, then we won't change', which presumably works in the favor of the admins, who presumably are those most likely to prefer rigid adherence to wikipedia rules, since it makes their task easier.

miraclef
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:19 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby miraclef » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:13 pm UTC

ech wrote:This is nothing compared to the debate about whether it should be "Mexican-American War" or "Mexican–American War".


What's the reasoning for the en-dash?

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Red Hal » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:16 pm UTC

Keming.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

miraclef
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:19 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby miraclef » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:18 pm UTC

Surely kerning should not be done by changing the character to a different one?

miraclef
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:19 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby miraclef » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:18 pm UTC

Regarding the comic, is it even valid to start article titles with non-alphanumeric characters?

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:36 pm UTC

hughperkins wrote:
I can't understand why anybody is taking that synopsis as proof the "I" should be lower-case.


Well, I think the logic goes like this:
  • the synopsis shows that 'into' is part of a larger sentence, and not the start of a subtitle
  • according to wikipedia standards, that means it should not be capitalized


But there isn't "into" in the synopsis, there is "Into", thus the sentence doesn't make sense unless it is a subtitle, and if it is a subtitle, then according to wikipedia standards, it should be capitalized...

Gah... I need to lay off the wikipedia and google some fluffy kittens instead or something.

turkeysandwich
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:46 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby turkeysandwich » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:49 pm UTC

Red Hal, this vandalism is roughly the equivalent of lighting off a firecracker.

That means you are, roughly, standing on your stoop in your boxer shorts yelling "Hey You KiDs!" "I Saw You!"

hughperkins
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:47 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:00 pm UTC

Well, I think the logic is that the "I" should be an "i" in the synopsis, because it isn't a subtitle, however the synopsis decided to make it a big "I" for stylistic reasons.

The point about the synopsis is not that it shows directly that it should be big or little 'i', but that it uses 'into' as part of a larger sentence including 'Star Trek'.

I can't believe you're making me provide arguments that go against my own point of view :roll:

hughperkins
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:47 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:05 pm UTC

It's like an analogy: imagine you are a systems administrator, and all your systems are linux, and a user comes and asks you to install 'MS Office', so you realize from this that their basic requirement is to have a word processor system, and install LibreOffice on their computer for them. The analogy being that just because they ask for 'MS Office' doesn't mean they will get 'MS Office', and just because the synopsis uses a big 'i' for a word that is part of a larger sentence, albeit in a title, doesn't mean that wikipedia editors will follow this exact same standard.

But just to be clear, I personally think that 'In Darkness' is a subtitle, and the synopsis is a pun, and therefore it should be a big 'I'.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:12 pm UTC

hughperkins wrote:Well, I think the logic is that the "I" should be an "i" in the synopsis, because it isn't a subtitle, however the synopsis decided to make it a big "I" for stylistic reasons.

The point about the synopsis is not that it shows directly that it should be big or little 'i', but that it uses 'into' as part of a larger sentence including 'Star Trek'.

I can't believe you're making me provide arguments that go against my own point of view :roll:


Hehe.. sorry. =) Playing the devil's advocate is healthy from time to time, but it can be a bit unpleasant. Let's stop here before somebody who genuinely thinks it should be lower-case shows up.

This reminds me of an argument (minor, compared to this) on the page for Iron Man 2 before the release of Thor, dealing with whether the giant warhammer that is shown in the post-credits sequence is to be linked to Mjolnir (comics) or not.

User avatar
oakleafwolf
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:38 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby oakleafwolf » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:16 pm UTC

Before I read the alt-text I assumed the joke was about fandom-crossing.

I'm really not sure the solution to an edit war is to introduce a psychopathic clown to the mix. I mean, really.

PATT
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:10 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby PATT » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:44 pm UTC

The Star Trek [I|i]nto Darkness crowd might have a nervous breakdown if someone showed them Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D.

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby peewee_RotA » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:48 pm UTC

I'm totally in the faction that wants it to be "-=UB3R_1337_1337_h4x0rz2013!!!1!!!!ONE!!!111!=-"
Last edited by peewee_RotA on Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:49 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:49 pm UTC

God help me I've joined the discussion

richP
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby richP » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:51 pm UTC

Clearly the solution was to supply the edit: " Star Trek n2 Darkness".

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:53 pm UTC

richP wrote:Clearly the solution was to supply the edit: " Star Trek N2 Darkness".


fixed

Apeiron
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:34 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Apeiron » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:02 pm UTC

When writing a title:
Capitalize the first word (no matter what part of speech)
Capitalize every word that is NOT an article/determiner or preposition.

The President of the United States

When abbreviating:
Capitalize every word that is not an article/determiner or preposition.

PotUS

The lower case letters inform the reader these words are determiners and prepositions. "ot" will almost always represent "of the".

This is not rocket science, brain surgery or rocket surgery. There's nothing to argue.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:07 pm UTC

Apeiron wrote:This is not rocket science, brain surgery or rocket surgery. There's nothing to argue.


Well, there is the matter whether the title is a (weird) sentence, or if it is actually a title + subtitle. Some people keep saying that the title means "Star Journey into Darkness" instead of "Star Trek: Into Darkness".

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:26 pm UTC

mikrit wrote:
ech wrote:This is nothing compared to the debate about whether it should be "Mexican-American War" or "Mexican–American War".
Ha! I thought you were joking about the hyphen/endash issue. But you weren't.


As this is xkcd: Mexican American-War, or Mexican American–War?

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:28 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:Keming.


Image

User avatar
jordan
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:41 pm UTC
Location: Coventry

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby jordan » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:32 pm UTC

CharonPDX wrote:The "serious" Wikipedians will argue about anything. "I don't care if E. E. Cummings used all lower case with no space between the first initials - it's just wrong, so we have to do it right."

Damn, I picked that out of thin air... Now looking, I see it's an actual argument. :|


With good reason, if people are still tossing that bit of fluff around. :)

User avatar
suso
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: Sky Grund
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby suso » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:35 pm UTC

Gauteamus wrote:Haven't actually seen any Star Trek movies, but great reference to .-=conTact=-.


I was wondering if anyone else caught that reference.
Imagine theres no signatures....

flamewise
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby flamewise » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:40 pm UTC

Sometimes, I feel like a need a graph to keep track of who's trying to troll whom.

There may have to be different edges for "intentional", "collateral", "unintended" and the most highly regarded "meta" trolling.

Currently there'd be about three nodes for Wikipedia, two for Xkcd and one for the film studio.

Well done, very entertaining.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5099
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Xeio » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:56 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
sotanaht wrote:That was part of the discussion, it isn't actually all about the i.

Oh god, I hadn't actually read the talk page yet. I can't believe such a cut-and-dry issue has spawned such a huge debate, and worse still that the morons are winning despite not having a case to their side. I see bits and pieces of this point covered there but nobody has just outright said it: every single title of every single Star Trek movie and TV series has been written in graphics with "Star Trek" one one line, no punctuation, and a title-case subtitle on a separate line below, and all of them are written in Wikipedia as "Star Trek", a colon, and the subtitle in title case. And the only thing anyone on the "Star Trek into Darkness" side has to offer is that in one place, the synopsis, the title is cleverly used as part of a sentence where "Star Trek" is a proper noun and "into darkness" is a prepositional phrase attached to the verb "taking", and that in such cases MoS would have "into" lowercase. This despite the director himself stating that the movie would have a subtitle with no colon. Ridiculous.

...I should probably go post this on the actual talk page there.
It's tempting to place move requests on all the other movies and see what happens, given this new precedent set by Into Darkness.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:02 pm UTC

Maybe the word "Into" in the title is secretly a malamanteau? Somebody should tell them.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Red Hal » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:04 pm UTC

lnto?
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
Himself
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:17 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Himself » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:41 pm UTC

I've seen a few lengthy discussions on wikipedia and participated in some of them. The silliest of these was where in the Hurricane Sandy article we should mention the popular name "Superstorm Sandy" and whether or not the text should be boldface. A similar debate has come up several times with one particular tornado outbreak.
"Looking me am a civilization person"
-Ratio Tile

rmsgrey
Posts: 3484
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:49 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:It's tempting to place move requests on all the other movies and see what happens, given this new precedent set by Into Darkness.


I can predict the reaction: "WP:POINT" will be invoked - the rule that says "don't be disruptive to try to prove a point" - where "being disruptive" appears to include "trying to apply established wikipedians' arguments to articles other than the one currently being argued about".

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Роберт » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:07 pm UTC

I can't believe how idiotic Wikipedia is being about this crap. It obviously should be considered a subtitle.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

hughperkins
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:47 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby hughperkins » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:09 pm UTC

I was thinking about creating a wikipedia fork, just a mediawiki, with just this page, with the title changed to 'I' or 'sTaR tReK', just for a joke.

Then I realized there was a small risk that people would start messing around with the content of that page.

Then it occurred to me: maybe there's some way of making a wikipedia where different people see different things? So, I could see 'Star Trek In Dark' (I cant remember the title, just the 'I' bit), and other people can see 'Star Trek in Dark', and other people can see 'StAr TrEk In DaRk'; everyone gets their own personal version!

I haven't thought through the implications of this fully,

To some extent, language localization is a specialization of this facility.

Then, what we want, is some way of controlling which bits each person gets to see.

Edit: so, basically, spammers and stuff would get to see an entire wikipedia of spam! People who speak English see everything in English; admins see everything with lowercase 'i's and stuff, non-admin non-spammers see... what do they see ???

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby mathmannix » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:14 pm UTC

As this shows no signs of being resolved, I propose that the title of the Wikipedia article be changed to "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS", thus neatly avoiding the issue. Furthermore, to make this not look out of place, I propose ALL Wikipedia articles be changed thusly ("CHICKEN", "MEXICAN/AMERICAN WAR", "LOPADOTEMACHOSELACHOGALEOKRANIOLEIPSANODRIMHYPOTRIMMATOSILPHIOPARAOMELITOKATAKECHYMENOKICHLEPIKOSSYPHOPHATTOPERISTERALEKTRYONOPTEKEPHALLIO KIGKLOPEIALAGOIOSIRAIOBAPHETRAGANOPTERYGON".)

Get on it, XKCDans!
Last edited by mathmannix on Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Роберт » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:15 pm UTC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xckd#Themes

This article should be updated to cite todays comic as well.
References to Wikipedia articles or to Wikipedia as a whole have occurred several times in xkcd.[‡ 10][‡ 14][‡ 15][‡ 16][‡ 17]
Currently it doesn't.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby philsov » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:38 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:
Red Hal wrote:Keming.


ffffuuuu.png


I came here to post pretty much the same thing.
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby PolakoVoador » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:51 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:As this shows no signs of being resolved, I propose that the title of the Wikipedia article be changed to "STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS", thus neatly avoiding the issue. Furthermore, to make this not look out of place, I propose ALL Wikipedia articles be changed thusly ("CHICKEN", "MEXICAN/AMERICAN WAR", "LOPADOTEMACHOSELACHOGALEOKRANIOLEIPSANODRIMHYPOTRIMMATOSILPHIOPARAOMELITOKATAKECHYMENOKICHLEPIKOSSYPHOPHATTOPERISTERALEKTRYONOPTEKEPHALLIO KIGKLOPEIALAGOIOSIRAIOBAPHETRAGANOPTERYGON".)

Get on it, XKCDans!


I oppose both your spelling and capitalization of xkcdians

Sjö
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Sjö » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:01 pm UTC

Obviously, the only sensible solution is having "into" capitalized and un-capitalized on alternating dates, and I say that as an experienced Wikipedia editor. I'll just pop over there and set them straight. See you soon.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:15 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xckd#Themes

This article should be updated to cite todays comic as well.
References to Wikipedia articles or to Wikipedia as a whole have occurred several times in xkcd.[‡ 10][‡ 14][‡ 15][‡ 16][‡ 17]
Currently it doesn't.


It's already mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xckd#Inspired_activities

And it doesn't make any sense in that section, but I'm not going to touch it. Could be dangerous, I think.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby Роберт » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:22 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Роберт wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xckd#Themes

This article should be updated to cite todays comic as well.
References to Wikipedia articles or to Wikipedia as a whole have occurred several times in xkcd.[‡ 10][‡ 14][‡ 15][‡ 16][‡ 17]
Currently it doesn't.


It's already mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xckd#Inspired_activities

And it doesn't make any sense in that section, but I'm not going to touch it. Could be dangerous, I think.

In case we needed more proof that Wikipedia is edited by a bunch of people who don't know what's going on...
The quality of Wikipedia is surprisingly good, kind of like sausage.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
jc
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1167: "Star Trek into Darkness"

Postby jc » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:42 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:
CharonPDX wrote:with proper American English grammar, titles are capitalized, except for articles, prepositions, and conjunctions. The fact that the original creator used improper capitalization is irrelevant - we must use the proper capitalization at all times! </sarcasm>
...
Fact of the matter is, there are conflicting schools of thought regarding capitalization of titles; some say every word, some say the first word and every subsequent word except articles/prepositions/conjunctions, some say .... There should be a prevailing style guide that settles the matter, but apparently the Wikipediocracy hasn't bothered to establish one, so the law of the Wild West applies.


This is probably the best sort of summary. Fact is, English has no legal arbiter of proper language use. It really can't, since it's the national language of too many countries. Some other languages have a legal standards body that can enforce their rules, but English has never had one. What we have is zillions of publishers and educational bodies, each with its own "standard" that it can enforce internally, but can't impose on the rest of us.

This turns out to be a valuable "feature" of English. I once read the explanation from a French researcher, who explained why he wrote all his technical papers in English. In French, he explained, there is an official Académie française that decides questions of orthography, usage, etc. It has enforcement power. This means that if he publishes in French, the Académie can step in and force him to "correct" percieved misuses of the language.

But, he argued, one of the important aspects of scientific research is that every field must work out terminology that is correct for their field. If they don't do this, they'll be subject to all the misunderstandings and invalid logic that comes from the polysemy that exists in all "common speech". And if a legal body of people unfamiliar with your field has the power to enforce your use of "standard" language, then you have a bureaucrat who doesn't understand your field correcting your papers to say things that aren't scientifically correct. Scientific work can't survive well in such an environment.

So, he concluded, it makes sense to use English, not just because it's more widely understood than French, but also because he and his colleagues can work out correct technical definitions of their terminology, and no outsider can interfere with this important activity. Well, except for journal editors, but they're usually people with expertise in the field, and they mostly understand the issues.

So we should be proud of the fact that there is no actual (i.e., legally enforcable) "standard" for the English language. This is one of the things that gave us English speakers such dominance in almost all fields of science. Our scientists are free to work out logical, correct terminology for their fields, and we can't interfere with or stop them from doing this. And we welcome scientists from other language communities into our linguistically-chaotic fold, so they can contribute to our science, too.

The only price we pay for this is putting up with all the idiots who insist that whatever they (mis-)learned in 5th grade is "standard", and burying discussions in interminable flame wars about capitalization, adverb placement, or whatever perceived offense some dummy spotted in one of our comments (or titles).

Titles are especially funny, since every publisher has rules for them, and no two publishers have the same set of rules.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 155 guests