Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 09:29 PM 5/24/2008, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote
>> Do you, since you are solely and only fixing "badly writen English" have to
>> be yourself familiar with the underlying source from which it
>> supposedly comes.
>>
> My opinion is that you need to be sure you understand it before you
> change a paraphrase.
>
That's a fair middle position. There are plenty of paraphrases which
cause one to wonder, "Did the source author really mean this?" Those
absolutely demand checking with the source.
>> That's the question. I say that's a silly position to take. We can
>> certainly fix badly writen English, without needing to be aware of
>> what source, or any source, from which it comes.
>>
> Given that there seems to be a consensus that accuracy is quite
> important, more important than style, or even "good English," I'd say
> it's not quite silly. Take anything to an extreme, you can make it silly.
>
We have more than a few exemplars available to prove that statement.
Nobody is disputing the importance of accuracy, though there are
problems with defining the level of accuracy suitable to some articles.
> Now, suppose that the original writing did *not* faithfully reflect
> the source. You take that erroneous text and "fix" it. With the same
> reference, of course. Are you now responsible for the inaccuracy that
> you have perpetuated?
>
Assuming that our first contributor is still around, we have the makings
of an edit war over If both refuse to discuss the matter on the talk
page it will probably take a third person to guide the dispute to
settlement.
> We need editorial notes. It's possible to put them in the wikitext,
> not visible unless you edit: "I just reworded this, I did not check
> the source. Please, someone with access to the source, check what
> I've done." Probably better to do this in Talk, though.
>
Editorial notes could be useful, but that may not be the best place for
them. In the edit box having the text interrupted by in-line notes and
references makes it more difficult to develop quality sentence flow.
> Pretty much, this is what another writer said about this. Ask for
> help from someone to check your new paraphrase. If you do so, you'll
> be utterly free of any blame for introduced errors, or for the
> implied validation of improper sourcing from your new paraphrase.
POV editing is accompanied by the self-declared notion that one's own
view is the only view that could possibly be neutral. There is also a
passion for having things settled to the detriment of onging dialogue
which can often seem messy and disordered.
Ec
In a message dated 5/24/2008 9:55:46 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
Close paraphrases intended to avoid a copyvio
can change the meaning of a passage entirely. >>
--------------------
Not that you are here directly suggesting it, but just to address an issue
of "paraphrasing in order to avoid a copyvio", in case anyone was confused.
You do not violate copyright by quoting your source. The only time you
would would be if you are quoting so much of the material that it makes it
unnecessarily for people to buy the work, or if you are quoting the *heart* of the
work. The *heart* being understood to be the '''main or only reason''' that
people want to buy the work.
Otherwise, you are free to quote any source and ref the source.
Will Johnson
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 09:26 PM 5/24/2008, you wrote:
>
>> By the way, "Style and Color" aren't in the same category as "opinion,
>> argument and judgement". Style and Color could be casual
>> observations "this is a
>> brown dog" is not in the same category as "this is a bad dog".
>>
> Style and color refer to manner of language, and neither brown dog
> nor bad dog show much of either, except the style is dull and colorless.
>
Style and colour add flow to the writing; it can include the continuity
that links the various already sourced bits of information.
> Opinion and argument and judgement, sourced (which generally includes
> attribution in the text, not merely sourcing), are facts and
> verifiable. (That is, the expression is verifiable. That the person
> *actually* held the opinion, for example, is often not verifiable.
> Might be, beyond a reasonable doubt, sometimes.)
>
> The interesting Moby-Dick text would be perfectly appropriate if
> attributed. *Maybe* if sourced other than attribution. You really
> can't tell, necessarily, from the form of the text. What if it was
> the consensus opinion among Melville experts that these descriptions
> were accurate?
>
> Again, I've encountered this: something very accurate appears to be
> an opinion to someone not familiar with the subject. Now, if it is
> sourced, that's the solution, to be sure. But if it is not sourced,
> that doesn't make it improper, it just means it needs source. What
> I'm saying here is that what may easily look like original research,
> or mere opinion, isn't. Requesting sources is the general solution.
And nothing prevents a person critical of missing sources from making
some effort to find them. While the ultimate responsibility for
sourcing a fact remains with the contributor, that responsibility is not
exclusive.
Ec
On 5/24/08, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd(a)lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> I think we've painted ourselves into a corner, and created a project
> where actual "writers" are not welcome, and where "editors" rule. In
> the rest of the world, writers are, as has been mentioned elsewhere
> here, hard to find, whereas editors are almost commodities. (Truly
> excellent editors are another matter, rare birds as well.) Writers
> without editors famously make bad books, but editors without writers
> make for boring books.
Very well put.
Sarah
In a message dated 5/24/2008 5:11:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
abd(a)lomaxdesign.com writes:
> there used to be a claim that "Robert's
> Rules of Order, Newly Revised" recommends "IRV" in such and such a
> situation. This claim, with exact wording, has been repeated all over
> the net, and not just on Wikipedia mirrors. It has shown up on the
> web sites of election clerks explaining proposals to the public. Is it true?
>
> Turns out that what the source actually says is ... different.>>
------
Proving that someone sourced a quote or paraphrase badly is not the same as
saying that we must be familiar with every source in order to fix badly writen
sentences. Quite a different animal alltogether.
Will Johnson
**************
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch
"Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
In a message dated 5/24/2008 4:48:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
abd(a)lomaxdesign.com writes:
> it seems many editors think so, which is why I'm troubling
> to respond here. The burden of sourcing what is in Wikipedia is on
> *all* of us.>>
------------
This thread, or at least my response to it, isn't about sourcing at all.
It's about what to do with material *which is already sourced*.
The material, already sourced, is *in* the article let's say.
Now you come across it and you say "my that paraphrase, etc is badly writen
English", and you fix it.
Do you, since you are solely and only fixing "badly writen English" have to
be yourself familiar with the underlying source from which it supposedly comes.
That's the question. I say that's a silly position to take. We can
certainly fix badly writen English, without needing to be aware of what source, or any
source, from which it comes.
Will Johnson
**************
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch
"Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
In a message dated 5/24/2008 4:20:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
abd(a)lomaxdesign.com writes:
> NPOV does not exclude
> "opinion, argument, judgement, style, and color.">>>
-------
Sure, provided they come from some source, not from you as a Wikipedian.
By the way, "Style and Color" aren't in the same category as "opinion,
argument and judgement". Style and Color could be casual observations "this is a
brown dog" is not in the same category as "this is a bad dog".
Will Johnson
**************
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch
"Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
At 09:01 PM 5/24/2008, Ian Woollard wrote:
>2008/5/25 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd(a)lomaxdesign.com>:
> > I've seen
> > articles where text is added, sources are added, then someone takes
> > it out because, perhaps, they say it is unbalanced,
>
>I essentially always revert those kinds of edits.
>
>As a rule, adding material is the way to create balance; I'm not sure
>I've ever seen an example where removal of sourced material for
>balance is correct, but it could theoretically happen. There probably
>should be a bot that reverts all edits that remove material with
>references, with the subject line 'pov' (I'm not kidding).
Yes, generally. There is a question of balance that sometimes arises.
Undue weight, is the argument that is used. Article on Topic A.
Criticism of A is put in, sourced. There is other criticism of A. The
argument can be made, and might be correct, that too much criticism
is unbalanced. The question turns into what can be rather knotty, the
question of relative notability.
My own conclusion is that the proper use of forking is, at least
sometimes, a good solution, where there starts to be imbalance, or at
least reasonably allegable imbalance. Thus, in the end, the solution
is indeed, don't remove sourced material, but add it, and the
question again becomes the basic encyclopedic task, which is not
inclusion/exclusion, but categorization. What *article* does this detail go in?
(And what *level* of article; we will soon have two levels, at least,
standard articles and verified articles. We could have more. My
opinion is that nothing verifiable of human knowledge should be
excluded. If it is verifiable and someone noticed it and cared enough
to create an article, it's sufficiently "notable," because,
obviously, it was "noticed." But not necessarily important enough to
intrude on readers who are not specifically digging for it.)
In a message dated 5/24/2008 6:10:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
> So then whose responsibility is it to check whether what the writer says
> is consistent with the source? I'm not even suggesting that the writer
> acted improperly, just that he misread his source. The writer can't
> check himself, because he's likely to make the same mistake. You have
> absolved the copyeditor from any responsibility in this. Who's left?>>>
>
--------
That would be a good argument if we only had two members of Wikipedia. Most
of the articles on which I've worked, have dozens if not hundreds of members
making changes.
If someone wants to *verify* the sources match the presented quotes or
paraphrases that would be one task, but I would not refer to a verification agent as
a "copy editor" personally. To me copyediting involves the re-writing of the
material to make it more readable. Not to verify evidence that it accurately
reflects the underlying sources.
So it appears this *dichotomy* is a *trichotomy* after all, if you will. But
remembering that our "writers" are not creative writers in the sense of
making up a story, but rather every writer is supposed to be reflecting their
sources. Some write poorly in the first place, and need assistance in framing the
language better. Not necessarily in verifying the source material.
Others may need help in verifying the source material, but I've never been
referring to that particular aspect of things.
Will Johnson
**************
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch
"Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)