= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JanetK comments on Neurological reality of human thought and decision making; implications for rationalism. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (42)
Doesn't anyone think that it is very rude to comment in someone else's language unless it is not understandable - just plain RUDE? If someone wants help with language they can ask. Language is a tool not a weapon.
Correcting someone's grammar and diction = sharpening their tool for them.
Or sharpening their weapon ;) Editing the article now.
Sometimes. For example I'd probably consider it slightly rude to reply to this with "s/comment in/comment on/". That said it is a borderline case since 'comment in someone else's language' actually means something (unintended) and so I needed to read your comment twice then look up the context before I could guess what you actually meant to say.
In the case of top level posts in main corrections are entirely appropriate. A certain standard is expected for main level posts. If that standard is not met then the alternative to polite correction is a silent downvote - many people prefer the correction.
If someone is particularly sensitive to correction they probably shouldn't make top posts - or, preferably they can ask someone to proofread for them before they post. This is actually what many people do anyway even if they have no language difficulties whatsoever. In fact there are people who have volunteered to proofread drafts for others as their way to contribute.
Typo and grammar corrections don't hurt as much as having your arm hacked off by a claymore either. I certainly don't consider Solvent's comment an attack.
I read the post, and didn't have much to say about the content. I felt a little bit bad about just correcting the grammar without having anything of substance to say, but it was in Main so I did so anyway. I tried to be polite.
OK, I over reacted. Several others have said that it is acceptable in Main - so be it. I guess it does not bother others as much as it bothers me and I won't comment on corrections in future.
I don't think this is rude at all. One of the things I like about Less Wrong, and which seems characteristic of it, is that the writing in posts - style and form as well as more basic stuff - is often constructively discussed with a view to improving the author's writing.
I might not go as far as "very rude", but I basically agree. I don't find corrections like these useful, and I doubt I would even if I was the one writing in a second language and being corrected, except when my errors were genuinely obscuring my meaning. One serious comment about what I am saying is worth any number of such trifles.
I guess that Dmytry's native language is Russian, which does not have a definite article, and so it is unsurprising if he sometimes uses "the" inaccurately. But having sussed that immediately on seeing his name and the first three words, it's of no further importance. I'm not here to give or to receive language lessons.
Comments on the language mistakes can be helpful for the author, but probably best sent as private messages rather than public comments, since they don't contribute much to the discussion otherwise.
Though I'm not sure if there's any UI shortcut for sending a private message related to a specific article, so you'll have to go to the user's page and phrase the message specifically to refer to the article, and that's a lot more work than just writing a public comment here...
Also, if significant numbers of people adopt this strategy, the result is I get lots of PMs telling me I used "who" instead of "whom", which seems a waste of energy.
I imagine they would stop once you correct the mistake. The inconvenience to you beyond the work of fixing your mistake seems to be seeing a few more messages once when you click the inbox. The benefit is that you improve the reception that your posts get (by virtue of slightly improved reading experience without any jarring errors to ignore.)
I meant by comparison to the strategy of leaving the correction in a comment rather than a PM, which has the same post-improving benefits without the multiple-inbox-entries inconvenience.
Admittedly, it has the added cost of creating a comment that lots of other people expend marginal time reading (which as you say also translates to some cost to me, even supposing I'm indifferent to the inconvenience of others, in terms of the reception my posts get).
OTOH, the PM strategy has the added cost-to-others of having N times as many people take the time to write such a comment, being unaware of their predecessors.Admittedly, the cost of that to me is lower. Actually, it might even be a benefit to me, since once I correct the error they pointed out it's quite likely they'll think better of me than if I hadn't made the error to begin with.
You're right of course. The cost to other people is far higher if they all message you. All for the slight benefit to you of not being publicly criticized.
Which may not even be a benefit. Being criticized publicly, and publicly responding to that criticism in a socially admired fashion, can be a net status gain.
Milking that kind of thing for status takes finesse but it is possible. Also useful for enhancing likability for those who already have high status.
(nods) Of course, for high-status individuals who are good at this particular maneuver it's also an opportunity to reinforce the public-criticism social norm, which increases their comparative advantage within the community.