4 ms·
Normally one should paraphrase. Quotes are reserved for special cases where that exact way something is said is essential for communicating the message. And the
by jusssi 6y ago
Normally one should paraphrase. Quotes are reserved for special cases where that exact way something is said is essential for communicating the message. And the need to add []-blocks is evidence that it doesn't belong to that special class.
Edit: All you lazy copy-paste writers downvoting all the comments here that propose paraphrasing instead of quoting: I see you.
- phnofive 6y agoWhy?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jusssi 6y agoSeveral reasons. Etiquette. Less reason mangle the words of others (arbitrarily cutting something out of larger context can also easily mangle). Let's your reader see how you understood the communication, not just that you found it somewhere and copy-pasted it in.
- Dylan16807 6y agoEtiquette is circular logic. A larger quote would still be arbitrarily cut out of a larger context. If you're extending past the good part purely to get a subject I'd even say it ends up more arbitrary. Unless you're taking a test, you don't need to prove you understood it, and if your reader lacks confidence in your understanding then paraphrasing makes the problem worse! Instead of merely worrying you missed important context, now they have to worry you completely altered the meaning. Paraphrasing can mangle words so easily. I'm baffled why you would imply otherwise. And your edit just makes you look stupid.
- jusssi 6y ago> Etiquette is circular logic. I was tempted to reply to this by throwing etiquette out of window, but that would get me downvoted to hell. Because there is an etiquette. > Paraphrasing can mangle words so easily. I'm baffled why you would imply otherwise. When I paraphrase someone, they're my words. Not the original author's. I take responsibility for them. > And your edit just makes you look stupid. You're right down there with me. Welcome.
- ddingus 6y agoSo are the words in brackets, and so should be responsibility.
- jusssi 6y agoBut a quote intermingled with [paraphrase] just becomes a more awkward way to paraphrase? Because surely it isn't a verbatim quote any more.
- ddingus 6y agoSure it is. The grammar is clear. One can know the quote exactly. Frankly, implying otherwise diminishes the language. Edit: All of which is why the article was written. People changing quotes, wrapping it in brackets so it flows better, in their view. That's a mess! Others here, myself included, correctly maintain appropriate bracket use does not change a quote, which is true until this garbage.
- sokoloff 6y agoIt’s a convenience to the reader. If I paraphrase a reference to support my point, it’s more work for you to determine if I’ve done so correctly. If I quote and update a dangling reference, it’s much easier for the reader to decide if I’ve done so in good faith and without introducing significant bias (whether intentionally or inadvertently). I think it’s more faithful to the original, at a slight cost of fluid readability, which is often a good trade-off of features.
- ghusbands 6y ago
- phnofive 6y ago> Etiquette Disagree; adding context or identifying of an unusual pattern as part of the quote is common practice > Less reason... > Let’s [sic] your reader see... These two points are at odds with each other - and how would my reader understand the contrast between the source and my interpretation without knowing the source?