At 09:29 PM 5/24/2008, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
This thread, or at least my response to it, isn't
about sourcing at all.
It's about what to do with material *which is already sourced*.
The material, already sourced, is *in* the article let's say.
Now you come across it and you say "my that paraphrase, etc is badly writen
English", and you fix it.
Whether or not this is proper, depends. Probably proper.
Let's assume it is a paraphrase.
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 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.
So do you have to look at the source? That depends on so many factors
that I don't think there is a general answer, one size fits all.
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?
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.
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.