Neil Harris wrote:
I think the point Mark is making is that there is
a difference
between a source actually used when writing the document, and a
suggestion for further reading. One suggests that the source was used
as a text source or authority, the other does not. Mixing the two up
can create a false impression; and unfortunately many editors do not
appreciate the differences.
There's a big difference between saying "I read this as I wrote this
article", "I used this as an authority", and "someone mentioned this
in their list of references for another article on the subject".
Sure there's a distinction, but it's only interesting for about
15 minutes, or less if the next editor comes along sooner. We don't
value process over product; if a person adds a bit of text but
justifies with an irrelevant or incorrect citation, we want to fix
the text or citation or both as necessary.
For instance, in areas where I'm a recognized expert, I can write
at length from memory, and don't need to refer to any sources at
all; then the references I include are just for the benefit of
readers, and other editors who want to check up on me. In other
areas, I'm carefully paraphrasing the one reference I've been able
to locate. However, I'm not expected or required to tell anybody
which of the two processes I used for any particular edit, and even
if I did, nobody would care much. So it's a distinction without a
difference.
Certainly if Mark makes an exact quote that can and must be justified by
an exact source. Careful paraphrasing, which most of us will do if we
don't want to start infringing copyrights, can be based equally well on
any of several texts. If we paraphrase print author B who had himself
paraphrased earlier print author A; we can still cite author A as a
reference.
Ec