[loudandskittish]

I'm finding this entire comment section confusing and I genuinely want to understand what is so offensive about what this editor did. To me this does not look like a problem that requires a solution and I even appreciate the essay (I've always had a hard time understanding the usage of 'comprises').

...yet I'm seeing unironic comparisons to both 1984 and Nazi Germany, so ... what this person did is evil?

Can someone please help me understand this?

[BuyMyBitcoins]

I don’t think anyone thinks this person is genuinely evil. I sense people are reacting against what they perceive as a busybody who has a disturbing compulsion to control something that isn’t even an issue.

Even though this person is a lone wolf, their actions feel disturbingly authoritarian. This level of compulsion and control is immensely off-putting to the average person. Anyone who puts this much effort into controlling information seems like someone worth confronting.

[crazygringo]

The editor is imposing a controversial viewpoint on tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles that is not supported by authority or consensus. Merriam-Webster, for example, disagrees with the editor [1].

It's not so different from if a Brit tried to change every instance of "color" to "colour", or an American changed every instance of "colour" to "color". It would be incredibly annoying, patronizing, and disrespectful.

Wikipedia is not a place for people to wage their private grammatical language wars, and so people are responding in a negative way because the editor is trying to impose their viewpoint by sheer force rather than respecting contributors who choose to use Merriam-Webster's 2nd definition of the word.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise