On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 3:00 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/24/2008 2:21:28 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, refero.relata@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