[WikiEN-l] What to do about our writing quality?

[Ray Saintonge]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 09:26 PM 5/24/2008, you wrote:
>   
>> By the way, "Style and Color" aren't in the same category as "opinion,
>> argument and judgement".  Style and Color could be casual 
>> observations "this is a
>> brown dog" is not in the same category as "this is a bad dog".
>>     
> Style and color refer to manner of language, and neither brown dog 
> nor bad dog show much of either, except the style is dull and colorless.
>   
Style and colour add flow to the writing; it can include the continuity 
that links the various already sourced bits of information.
> Opinion and argument and judgement, sourced (which generally includes 
> attribution in the text, not merely sourcing), are facts and 
> verifiable. (That is, the expression is verifiable. That the person 
> *actually* held the opinion, for example, is often not verifiable. 
> Might be, beyond a reasonable doubt, sometimes.)
>
> The interesting Moby-Dick text would be perfectly appropriate if 
> attributed. *Maybe* if sourced other than attribution. You really 
> can't tell, necessarily, from the form of the text. What if it was 
> the consensus opinion among Melville experts that these descriptions 
> were accurate?
>
> Again, I've encountered this: something very accurate appears to be 
> an opinion to someone not familiar with the subject. Now, if it is 
> sourced, that's the solution, to be sure. But if it is not sourced, 
> that doesn't make it improper, it just means it needs source. What 
> I'm saying here is that what may easily look like original research, 
> or mere opinion, isn't. Requesting sources is the general solution. 

And nothing prevents a person critical of missing sources from making 
some effort to find them.  While the ultimate responsibility for 
sourcing a fact remains with the contributor, that responsibility is not 
exclusive.

Ec