On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 3:00 AM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 5/24/2008 2:21:28 P.M. Pacific
Daylight Time,
refero.relata(a)gmail.com writes:
Sorry, this is getting ridiculous. As several people have said "properly"
is
subjective - and as I say above (irrelevant!?) - we don't enjoin people to
write "properly" in the manner you suggest in the first place...>>
--------------------------------------------------
I am not suggesting that people write "properly" in any manner. You are.
I'm responding to your assertion that copy-editors must reference the
underlying sources.
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, no, you must have misunderstood me. I have never said that all
additions must be "proper".
My whole point is "re-writing" is quite capable of changing emphasis,
wording, tone and context in such a manner that WP:V is relevant. These
are
familiar issues, for example, to anyone who's ever had to copy-edit
translations.>>
--------------------------
Sure and the burden to show that, is on those people with reference to the
sources. And they way they show it, is to quote those sources, not just
wave
their hands around in mock disapproval of the copy editors job. Not that
you're doing that.
---------------------------
The burden is on those making a change or adding material. That is always
how we have operated.
And above all, we do not want to place the burden on writers to come back
and check every contribution they've made...>>
--------------------
But you're quite happy to burden copyeditors with the requirement to live
inside university library stacks. Hardly a fair situation is it.
No. But necessary as long as we prize accuracy above beauty.
RR