[HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Paraphrasing vs. verbatim quotes

[Jordan Abel]

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.

Random832:
I was proposing allowing it, since I thought that it wasn't, which is
why I asked for permission. I didn't think it should be required, but
these things do tend to take on a life of their own; self-attribution is
well on its way. [btw male]

Ceridwen:
> 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.

Random832:
I think I left out the part about including a message number, like I
said elsewhere in the thread, it got lost somewhere between my brain and
the keyboard. But anyway, you did have to go back and get it, even
though at no point in this thread did anyone use my "zero-quote posting"
idea. The fact is, my message was long gone. Though a list of pertinent
message numbers is easier to include than a full history of all relevant
quoted text.

> 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:
[...]
> My problem here is, what if the earlier posts are *not* appropriately
> paraphrased?

Random832:
By "appropriately", I meant that they would be paraphrased if necessary,
It wasn't meant to be a reference to correctness of interpretation. I
actually hadn't thought of that as an issue when I originally proposed
this.

Ceridwen:
> 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.

Random832:
I think what often happens is that people want to respond point by
point, as if it's a debate, and they feel the need to leave in all the
original "points". And I'm probably as guilty of this as anyone else -
this idea is as much an experiment for _me_ as it is for the benefit of
the list.

Ceridwen:
> 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.

Random832:
Paraphrase, summarise, etc. I hadn't really done much thinking on the
distinction, I only meant... well, to put enough in, preferably in one's
own words, to make it clear what you're talking about.

> Elisabet:
>> Sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Random832:
I think that it's taken too much for granted that quoting _is_ "the
baby" - what if it's really more like a white elephant?

Ceridwen:
> 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.

Random832:
Well, at least one seems to have taken the rather baffling position that
I'm somehow arguing against the rules despite also acknowledging there
being, in fact, no rule against what I'm asking for.

Ceridwen:
> 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.

Random832:
So nice that you're all agreed; unfortunately it's not what I was
saying at all. And this even with having re-read and re-quoted my original
post. Now isn't it nice that I was able to "get" that it was what you
thought I was saying, instead of continuing to believe (as I did until
you said that) that you're arguing against me or anyone else being
*allowed* to post without quoting? Now, if you'd paraphrased what you
thought I said; well, first off, we wouldn't be having this discussion,
since no-quote posting would clearly then already be the norm; but more
to the point, I'd _know_ what you thought I said, and be able to say
"no, I didn't mean that at all".

Ceridwen:
> 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,

Random832:
So we're to suppose I'm not here to correct you? Even so, isn't that
still better than people believing that _your_ position is that there
should be a new rule forbidding posting without a certain minimum number
of quote lines? (such could be derived from an interpretation of some
people's responses combined with a correct interpretation of what I
meant)

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

Random832:
My suggestion included a place for direct quotes - in the middle of the
paragraph, between real quotation marks.

And for the record, my suggestion elsewhere that we go to top-posting,
or at least allow it, _was_ non-serious, but it's looking more and more
like a viable compromise.

-- 
Random832, certainly not going to make a post long enough to prompt the
use of a real text editor and then forget to sign it