[..] What is also frequently a concern is that material is frequently added to articles based on scholarly resources or books that are not
online. >If the original addition is carefully worded to closely paraphrase a point >in the secondary source, a copyeditor concerned about >style might well - >and frequently does - come in and change that such that it is no longer >sufficiently faithful to the nuances in the source, since the copyeditor >does not have access to the source.
RR
True, what helps against this is giving quotes of the dead tree sources in the footnotes.
Andries
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Andries Krugers Dagneaux < andrieskd@chello.nl> wrote:
[..] What is also frequently a concern is that material is frequently added to articles based on scholarly resources or books that are not
online. >If the original addition is carefully worded to closely paraphrase a point >in the secondary source, a copyeditor concerned about >style might well - >and frequently does - come in and change that such that it is no longer >sufficiently faithful to the nuances in the source, since the copyeditor >does not have access to the source.
RR
True, what helps against this is giving quotes of the dead tree sources in the footnotes.
Andries
That of course helps, as you and others have pointed out; there are still, of course, occasional cases when the single quote does not really provide the required context, or when taken out of context can be completely misinterpreted. I think anyone working in contentious areas would have had some experience of that nature.
RR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Relata Refero wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Andries Krugers Dagneaux andrieskd@chello.nl> wrote:
[..] What is also frequently a concern is that material is frequently added to articles based on scholarly resources or books that are not
online. >If the original addition is carefully worded to closely paraphrase a point >in the secondary source, a copyeditor concerned about >style might well - >and frequently does - come in and change that such that it is no longer >sufficiently faithful to the nuances in the source, since the copyeditor >does not have access to the source.
RR
True, what helps against this is giving quotes of the dead tree sources in the footnotes.
Andries
That of course helps, as you and others have pointed out; there are still, of course, occasional cases when the single quote does not really provide the required context, or when taken out of context can be completely misinterpreted. I think anyone working in contentious areas would have had some experience of that nature.
RR _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Create a template, call it {{dontcopyedit}}, and set its source to the following, enclosed in comment marks:
the following appears to need copyediting for {{{1}}}, but is actually carefully paraphrased from {{{2}}}. Be careful when copyediting.
Or can't parameters be used in comments?
- -- Sincerely, [[User:Thinboy00]]
2008/5/26 [[User:Thinboy00]] thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com:
Create a template, call it {{dontcopyedit}}, and set its source to the following, enclosed in comment marks: the following appears to need copyediting for {{{1}}}, but is actually carefully paraphrased from {{{2}}}. Be careful when copyediting. Or can't parameters be used in comments?
[o lord, not more templates ...]
I tend to put HTML comments in the wikitext when it's important, e.g. when a name that looks like a misspelling is actually accurate.
- d.
2008/5/24 Andries Krugers Dagneaux andrieskd@chello.nl:
[..] What is also frequently a concern is that material is frequently added to articles based on scholarly resources or books that are not
online. >If the original addition is carefully worded to closely paraphrase a point >in the secondary source, a copyeditor concerned about >style might well - >and frequently does - come in and change that such that it is no longer >sufficiently faithful to the nuances in the source, since the copyeditor >does not have access to the source.
RR
True, what helps against this is giving quotes of the dead tree sources in the footnotes.
It's a non-issue, in any case. If a copy edit obscures or changes the meaning, a subsequent editor can fix it just as one would fix any other incorrect edit. We only cite public sources so all the editor has to do is check the "dead tree" version as a good library.