Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 09:29 PM 5/24/2008, WJhonson@aol.com wrote
Do you, since you are solely and only fixing "badly writen English" have to be yourself familiar with the underlying source from which it supposedly comes.
My opinion is that you need to be sure you understand it before you change a paraphrase.
That's a fair middle position. There are plenty of paraphrases which cause one to wonder, "Did the source author really mean this?" Those absolutely demand checking with the source.
That's the question. I say that's a silly position to take. We can certainly fix badly writen English, without needing to be aware of what source, or any source, from which it comes.
Given that there seems to be a consensus that accuracy is quite important, more important than style, or even "good English," I'd say it's not quite silly. Take anything to an extreme, you can make it silly.
We have more than a few exemplars available to prove that statement. Nobody is disputing the importance of accuracy, though there are problems with defining the level of accuracy suitable to some articles.
Now, suppose that the original writing did *not* faithfully reflect the source. You take that erroneous text and "fix" it. With the same reference, of course. Are you now responsible for the inaccuracy that you have perpetuated?
Assuming that our first contributor is still around, we have the makings of an edit war over If both refuse to discuss the matter on the talk page it will probably take a third person to guide the dispute to settlement.
We need editorial notes. It's possible to put them in the wikitext, not visible unless you edit: "I just reworded this, I did not check the source. Please, someone with access to the source, check what I've done." Probably better to do this in Talk, though.
Editorial notes could be useful, but that may not be the best place for them. In the edit box having the text interrupted by in-line notes and references makes it more difficult to develop quality sentence flow.
Pretty much, this is what another writer said about this. Ask for help from someone to check your new paraphrase. If you do so, you'll be utterly free of any blame for introduced errors, or for the implied validation of improper sourcing from your new paraphrase.
POV editing is accompanied by the self-declared notion that one's own view is the only view that could possibly be neutral. There is also a passion for having things settled to the detriment of onging dialogue which can often seem messy and disordered.
Ec