7 ms·

> And the response, "we're not trying to sell you a modem, we're just encouraging you to strongly consider buying a new one" Making up quotes like this is agai

> And the response, "we're not trying to sell you a modem, we're just encouraging you to strongly consider buying a new one" Making up quotes like this is against HN guidelines (and common decency).

glenstein 9y ago
My "quote" isn't significantly different from what was actually said, in fact hews extremely closely to it, and is designed for rhetorical purpose of making clear how small a distinction is being relied upon in order to claim the statement is something other than a request for you to buy a new modem. Moreover there's nothing in the guidelines about "making up quotes" (which again isn't a reasonable interpretation of what that is), whereas there are actual, explicit guidelines against addressing yourself to unreasonably interpreted versions of other people's comments.
- tptacek 9y ago
  If you're rewording something someone else said, even if you're keeping it very close to the original words, don't use quotation marks. Quotes say "this is literally what was said". I got bit by this a bunch when I first got on HN; it was surprising to me how seriously it was taken. But it is, and it's not hard to work around.
  - pvg 9y ago
    That's a weird HN-ism, though, not how writing or paraphrasing works anywhere else. The goal is understandable and laudable but 'redefining the meaning of quotes' is a thing only hardcore lispers can love.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Yeah, they should probably put it in the guidelines. I just remember getting sniped by PG for using quotes that way.
      - pvg 9y ago
        What I'm getting at is, no, they shouldn't, nor should they expect anyone to adopt some weird made-up usage of standard punctuation. Perhaps they should put 'avoid paraphrasing as a rhetorical device' or something like it in the guidelines - that would make sense and be reasonably enforceable. "Don't use quotes the way everyone uses quotes" (like I just did) is just silly and ridiculous. You might as well put "don't call anyone a butthead without using the Oxford comma" in the guidelines.
    - nullymcnull 9y ago
      This is not an "HN-ism". It is not proper to use quotation marks when paraphrasing. Doing so is explicitly attributing words to someone that they did not say. > not how writing or paraphrasing works anywhere else That's simply false. If you want to use Reddit et al as your standard reference on the use of language and punctuation, have at it. But you can't reasonably expect every other forum to use that lowest common denominator. Railing against simple, longstanding house rules like this is just pointless contrarianism.
      - pvg 9y ago
        That's simply false. No, it isn't. I'm saying what somebody else is saying, in their voice. This goes in quotes, because it's someone else's speech, even if it's my version of their speech. The fact that they didn't actually say it comes from context. Punctuation is not semantic markup. This doesn't come from reddit, it comes from, you know, the way people actually write. The fact that it requires repeated and lengthy explanations is a pretty decent indication it's not how anyone else writes.
        kasey_junk 9y ago
        Writing style guides are a thing & a thing that have been around for a long time. All 3 of the style guides I’ve had reason to use (AP, MLA & CMS) all require that quoted material be direct quotes. Now, I think that it’s a fair argument that a web forum needn’t have the same formality as other written word, but your assertion that “it’s not how anyone writes” is clearly untrue. And just as a single data point, I expect when someone uses quotes even on the web that they are asserting a verbatim quote.
        pvg 9y ago
        kasey_junk said "I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and a my butt smells and I like to kiss my own butt". Should this not include quotes, even though you didn't say it? "AP, MLA & CMS" are an absurd counterpoint that falls well within 'that's not how anyone writes'. They are, if anything, lengthy exceptions to how anyone writes. It's a deeply silly argument and my point is 'an internet messageboard should not be regulating punctuation'. It should, as this one usually does, try to regulate behaviour.
    - agar 9y ago
      I think you're missing an important distinction. When paraphrasing a group of people or stating a cultural zeitgeist, quotes are acceptable: > The gist of the HN community's opinion is, "don't use quotation marks when paraphrasing." > Lately the Democrats approach has been, "oppose Trump at every turn." However, when paraphrasing a specific individual, it is frowned upon at best[1][2], and considered intentionally misleading at worst[3], to put paraphrases in quotes. > pvg said, "I don't care what HN thinks, I'll do what I want." > pvg continued with, "no one else cares what HN thinks either." Contrast that with, > pvg said that "only harcore lispers" care about how paraphrasing works. In the last example, you can clearly tell the direct quote from the paraphrase. This is very important when communicating someone else's ideas. Regardless of hard and fast "rules" of punctuation and grammar, you have a large number of people calling your writing misleading, confusing, and inaccurate. Clear communications should be the goal of any writing; wouldn't you be best served by hearing and incorporating this feedback? [1] MLA: "Paraphrases and summaries do not use quotation marks" - http://www.lmu.edu/Assets/Academic+Affairs+Division/Academic+Resource+Center/MLA+Quoting+and+Paraphrasing+Spring+2011.pdf http://www.lmu.edu/Assets/Academic+Affairs+Division/Academic... [2] Purdue: "Indirect quotations are not exact wordings but rather rephrasings or summaries of another person's words. In this case, it is not necessary to use quotation marks" (note that no example of indirect quotations include quotation marks) - https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/ [3] "But then there's a long slide through confusion and bias into intentionally misleading quote-mangling and outright fabrication" - http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/10/17/gay_talese_there_s_no_excuse_for_journalists_to_paraphrase_sources_in_direct.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/10/17/gay_tal...
      - pvg 9y ago
        That exhaustingly (if not exhaustively) describes a number of important distinctions that never come up when some hapless commenter gets told off they're using quotes wrong. It's a Talmudic absurdity to apply to a message board. We don't have 70 comment threads about the proper use of "it's" vs "its", with MLA citations (which, it's worth recalling, "specifies guidelines for formatting manuscripts and using the English language in writing") It's just a dumb, arbitrary rule. It serves no purpose beyond facilitating righteous rebuke. You can make a better rule dealing with the underlying behaviour while oxygen deprived from screaming at dang about HN's political bias.
  - glenstein 9y ago
    This rule is too idiosyncratic, annoying, not found anywhere in the guidelines, and is not offering any net benefit in this context that I can see. If the object of the rule is to produce derails like this, it's doing more harm than good. So unless someone wants to explain how it's invocation in this thread improved the quality of conversation about Comcast's javascript injection policy, I would encourage others to join me in not observing the norm.
- dang 9y ago
  Making up a weaponized quote that's close to what was originally said is actually worse, because then it's harder for passers-by to tell apart and more injurious to the original statement. By 'weaponized' I mean altering it to sharpen the point for indignation or snark purposes. It's a harmful internet practice that we've asked to users to abstain from. You're right that it isn't explicitly mentioned in the site guidelines, but those aren't a list of proscribed behaviors but a set of values to internalize. I'd say "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize" covers this case pretty squarely.
  - glenstein 9y ago
    How about to sharpen the point for brevity and clarity in order to convey a perfectly legitimate point? Arguing against something doesn't mean that you interpreted it uncharitably and doesn't merit the exaggerated description of being weaponized (and the comfort level with such exaggerations as "injurious" and "weaponized" is amusing in the context where the concern is about insufficient proximity between a statement and how that statement is subsequently characterized. There's a lot more distance between those adjectives and what I did than between the statement and my paraphrase of it.) And virtually anyone in any argument could insist, tediously, that those disagreeing with them have failed to interpret with sufficient charity. But it's one thing to note that as a hypothetical possibility, and another entirely to point to something that's actually a clear cut offense. I don't think I twisted or misrepresented anything, and no one seems to be suggesting the anything was actually misrepresented or misinterpreted so much as they're using this occasion as a jumping off point to litigate the abstract principle. Which I don't think is a constructive use of anybody's time, which is why this is a bad norm that shouldn't be observed.
    - carussell 9y ago
      > I don't think I twisted or misrepresented anything, and no one seems to be suggesting the anything was actually misrepresented No, that is what I'm suggesting. Your comment reads as a quote. After reading it, I went to the linked page and looked around for the context. Turns out, there was no context for that quote, because it's not a quote, because those words aren't actually in the original text.

> And the response, "we're not trying to sell you a modem, we're just encouraging you to strongly consider buying a new one" Making up quotes like this is against HN guidelines (and common decency).

glenstein 9y ago

My "quote" isn't significantly different from what was actually said, in fact hews extremely closely to it, and is designed for rhetorical purpose of making clear how small a distinction is being relied upon in order to claim the statement is something other than a request for you to buy a new modem. Moreover there's nothing in the guidelines about "making up quotes" (which again isn't a reasonable interpretation of what that is), whereas there are actual, explicit guidelines against addressing yourself to unreasonably interpreted versions of other people's comments.

tptacek 9y ago
If you're rewording something someone else said, even if you're keeping it very close to the original words, don't use quotation marks. Quotes say "this is literally what was said". I got bit by this a bunch when I first got on HN; it was surprising to me how seriously it was taken. But it is, and it's not hard to work around.
- pvg 9y ago
  That's a weird HN-ism, though, not how writing or paraphrasing works anywhere else. The goal is understandable and laudable but 'redefining the meaning of quotes' is a thing only hardcore lispers can love.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Yeah, they should probably put it in the guidelines. I just remember getting sniped by PG for using quotes that way.
    - pvg 9y ago
      What I'm getting at is, no, they shouldn't, nor should they expect anyone to adopt some weird made-up usage of standard punctuation. Perhaps they should put 'avoid paraphrasing as a rhetorical device' or something like it in the guidelines - that would make sense and be reasonably enforceable. "Don't use quotes the way everyone uses quotes" (like I just did) is just silly and ridiculous. You might as well put "don't call anyone a butthead without using the Oxford comma" in the guidelines.
  - nullymcnull 9y ago
    This is not an "HN-ism". It is not proper to use quotation marks when paraphrasing. Doing so is explicitly attributing words to someone that they did not say. > not how writing or paraphrasing works anywhere else That's simply false. If you want to use Reddit et al as your standard reference on the use of language and punctuation, have at it. But you can't reasonably expect every other forum to use that lowest common denominator. Railing against simple, longstanding house rules like this is just pointless contrarianism.
    - pvg 9y ago
      That's simply false. No, it isn't. I'm saying what somebody else is saying, in their voice. This goes in quotes, because it's someone else's speech, even if it's my version of their speech. The fact that they didn't actually say it comes from context. Punctuation is not semantic markup. This doesn't come from reddit, it comes from, you know, the way people actually write. The fact that it requires repeated and lengthy explanations is a pretty decent indication it's not how anyone else writes.
      - kasey_junk 9y ago
        Writing style guides are a thing & a thing that have been around for a long time. All 3 of the style guides I’ve had reason to use (AP, MLA & CMS) all require that quoted material be direct quotes. Now, I think that it’s a fair argument that a web forum needn’t have the same formality as other written word, but your assertion that “it’s not how anyone writes” is clearly untrue. And just as a single data point, I expect when someone uses quotes even on the web that they are asserting a verbatim quote.
        pvg 9y ago
        kasey_junk said "I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and a my butt smells and I like to kiss my own butt". Should this not include quotes, even though you didn't say it? "AP, MLA & CMS" are an absurd counterpoint that falls well within 'that's not how anyone writes'. They are, if anything, lengthy exceptions to how anyone writes. It's a deeply silly argument and my point is 'an internet messageboard should not be regulating punctuation'. It should, as this one usually does, try to regulate behaviour.
  - agar 9y ago
    I think you're missing an important distinction. When paraphrasing a group of people or stating a cultural zeitgeist, quotes are acceptable: > The gist of the HN community's opinion is, "don't use quotation marks when paraphrasing." > Lately the Democrats approach has been, "oppose Trump at every turn." However, when paraphrasing a specific individual, it is frowned upon at best[1][2], and considered intentionally misleading at worst[3], to put paraphrases in quotes. > pvg said, "I don't care what HN thinks, I'll do what I want." > pvg continued with, "no one else cares what HN thinks either." Contrast that with, > pvg said that "only harcore lispers" care about how paraphrasing works. In the last example, you can clearly tell the direct quote from the paraphrase. This is very important when communicating someone else's ideas. Regardless of hard and fast "rules" of punctuation and grammar, you have a large number of people calling your writing misleading, confusing, and inaccurate. Clear communications should be the goal of any writing; wouldn't you be best served by hearing and incorporating this feedback? [1] MLA: "Paraphrases and summaries do not use quotation marks" - http://www.lmu.edu/Assets/Academic+Affairs+Division/Academic+Resource+Center/MLA+Quoting+and+Paraphrasing+Spring+2011.pdf http://www.lmu.edu/Assets/Academic+Affairs+Division/Academic... [2] Purdue: "Indirect quotations are not exact wordings but rather rephrasings or summaries of another person's words. In this case, it is not necessary to use quotation marks" (note that no example of indirect quotations include quotation marks) - https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/ [3] "But then there's a long slide through confusion and bias into intentionally misleading quote-mangling and outright fabrication" - http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/10/17/gay_talese_there_s_no_excuse_for_journalists_to_paraphrase_sources_in_direct.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/10/17/gay_tal...
    - pvg 9y ago
      That exhaustingly (if not exhaustively) describes a number of important distinctions that never come up when some hapless commenter gets told off they're using quotes wrong. It's a Talmudic absurdity to apply to a message board. We don't have 70 comment threads about the proper use of "it's" vs "its", with MLA citations (which, it's worth recalling, "specifies guidelines for formatting manuscripts and using the English language in writing") It's just a dumb, arbitrary rule. It serves no purpose beyond facilitating righteous rebuke. You can make a better rule dealing with the underlying behaviour while oxygen deprived from screaming at dang about HN's political bias.
- glenstein 9y ago
  This rule is too idiosyncratic, annoying, not found anywhere in the guidelines, and is not offering any net benefit in this context that I can see. If the object of the rule is to produce derails like this, it's doing more harm than good. So unless someone wants to explain how it's invocation in this thread improved the quality of conversation about Comcast's javascript injection policy, I would encourage others to join me in not observing the norm.
dang 9y ago
Making up a weaponized quote that's close to what was originally said is actually worse, because then it's harder for passers-by to tell apart and more injurious to the original statement. By 'weaponized' I mean altering it to sharpen the point for indignation or snark purposes. It's a harmful internet practice that we've asked to users to abstain from. You're right that it isn't explicitly mentioned in the site guidelines, but those aren't a list of proscribed behaviors but a set of values to internalize. I'd say "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize" covers this case pretty squarely.
- glenstein 9y ago
  How about to sharpen the point for brevity and clarity in order to convey a perfectly legitimate point? Arguing against something doesn't mean that you interpreted it uncharitably and doesn't merit the exaggerated description of being weaponized (and the comfort level with such exaggerations as "injurious" and "weaponized" is amusing in the context where the concern is about insufficient proximity between a statement and how that statement is subsequently characterized. There's a lot more distance between those adjectives and what I did than between the statement and my paraphrase of it.) And virtually anyone in any argument could insist, tediously, that those disagreeing with them have failed to interpret with sufficient charity. But it's one thing to note that as a hypothetical possibility, and another entirely to point to something that's actually a clear cut offense. I don't think I twisted or misrepresented anything, and no one seems to be suggesting the anything was actually misrepresented or misinterpreted so much as they're using this occasion as a jumping off point to litigate the abstract principle. Which I don't think is a constructive use of anybody's time, which is why this is a bad norm that shouldn't be observed.
  - carussell 9y ago
    > I don't think I twisted or misrepresented anything, and no one seems to be suggesting the anything was actually misrepresented No, that is what I'm suggesting. Your comment reads as a quote. After reading it, I went to the linked page and looked around for the context. Turns out, there was no context for that quote, because it's not a quote, because those words aren't actually in the original text.