Paraphrasing vs. verbatim quotes

[Ceridwen]

Elisabet:
> There seems to be some confusion (on my part only, perhaps) about a 
couple of things: first, whether Random832 was proposing *allowing* 
paraphrasing, or whether she was proposing *requiring* paraphrasing 
(i.e. disallowing block quotes altogether); and second, whether 
paraphrasing other list members' comments is an acceptable practice 
at all.

Ceridwen:
Hi, Elisabet.  I'm answering for myself alone, as a fellow-poster and 
not as an elf.

Interesting question.  If we had an example of what Random wrote in 
this post, I might be able to offer an opinion.  Though, for the 
definitive answer, only Random could give that.  I'm going back to 
snag Random's post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-
Feedback/message/749

See, going back to get the quote makes more work for me to be able to 
respond to your query.  I clicked on the wrong post at first, and had 
to go up farther.  Random's original post:

Random832:
> > I would like permission (both from you [Lee Storm] personally and 
from the elves) to start an experiment: zero quote posting.

Ceridwen:
I read that as Random asking if it would be all right for *him* (or 
*her*) to begin posting as s/he suggests below:

Random832:
> > Basically, any reply would, instead of quoting pieces of others' 
message with indentation, instead appropriately paraphrase for
context. 

Ceridwen:
My problem here is, what if the earlier posts are *not* appropriately 
paraphrased?  I would expect, then, that Random would ask if 
FirstPoster *meant* this and that, and if so, then Random thinks such 
and so.  And since Random has suggested this as an experiment, I 
would expect to see this noted somewhere either at the top or the 
bottom of his or her response, which would then invite other posters 
to weigh in with their thoughts on the method.  Perhaps with a link 
to the post quoted here, where he first suggests the experiment.

Random832:
> > Where necessary (that is, when the wording itself is what's being 
responded to), _short_ verbatim quotes could be included, but 
properly included in text with an indication of what was said and 
included in proper "quotation marks" rather than indented with ascii 
right angle bracket signs.

Ceridwen:
Vexxy is trying to poke her nose into this, but I think I have her 
successfully under control...

*IMPERIO!*  That should do it!

The list elves, in accordance with the Humongous Big File and other 
group rules and suggestions, are always asking that people snip 
original quotes to the barest minimum.  As you mention elsewhere in 
your post, it's a pain to scroll past reams of stuff you've already 
read.  A short reminder quote in keeping with the subject should be 
all that is left.  Sometimes, that's hard to do, so people leave more.

In this case, I don't see any reason to have anything else around the 
quote.  Why paraphrase when the original quote is included?  Just 
make the comment, or build on the idea, and snip the rest of the 
original post.

Elisabet:
> In regards to the first, I read it as Random832 proposing a not-
entirely-serious remedy, in order to make a point - if quoting
format is going to be such a big issue let's just do away with block 
quotes altogether. Sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath
water. But then, I also read the "smart-ass" comment as being self-
directed, since it followed immediately after a quote attributed
to herself, and I got *that* one wrong.

Ceridwen:
This isn't the way I read Random's suggestion at all.  I took the 
suggestion to be serious, since we have been going back and forth on 
attribution and quoting for some time.  And, I thought that Random 
meant that he or she would like to conduct this experiment on the 
list to see how it works out.

The formatting question isn't a very big deal as it's playing out 
here on Feedback.  Only Random has been arguing against the list's 
rules and suggestions.  Two other non-elf posters have weighed in 
supporting the rules and suggestions.  I hope I'm not leaving anybody 
out!  Present company excepted, of course.

You gave a very good example of paraphrasing, and other posters have 
paraphrased more recently to find out if what they understood was 
what the other poster meant.  And, I just paraphrased Random, Lee 
Storm, and Steve.  *As far as I know*, there is no rule against 
paraphrasing.  And, there doesn't seem to be any suggestions against 
it either, as long as it is clear who said it (attribution) and also 
clear what is meant (content).

But, to get rid of quoting and replacing it with paraphrasing would 
be difficult for quite a few members.  ESL members who are not wholly 
sure of themselves when composing in another language might have 
problems, and may not even feel welcome in the group any more if they 
think they are, or in fact are, forced to paraphrase and get rid of 
quotes; it's often easier to understand a second language than it is 
to communicate in it.  Going solely to paraphrasing is what I think 
Random was saying in his post, and which you seem to agree that he is 
saying in your post.

But, what if I'm wrong and that isn't what you meant, or what Random 
meant?  And what if my interpretation was believed by the list, 
instead of interested listmembers going back to check the original 
posts?  Without knowing the number of the post, it's sometimes 
difficult to find where someone said something in a thread, 
especially when a person has been active in that thread.

I can certainly see a place for paraphrasing, but not so they take 
the place of direct quotes and clear attribution.  Does this help?

Ceridwen, for herself alone.