On 5/24/08, Relata Refero <refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 3:15 AM, SlimVirgin
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/24/08, Relata Refero
<refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The
point remains: do you think that close paraphrases are sometimes
necessary? If so, do you think that such paraphrases can be, ont the
average, re-written without reference to the source so that they do not
alter meaning? These are not questions that require specific examples.
A good copy editor should be able to change a text without changing
the meaning. In very contentious articles, it's unfortunate that close
paraphrasing (to the point of copying word for word) or quoting is
often necessary throughout the entire text. It means those articles
often look like lists of quotations, with no narrative flow at all.
I know some such copy-editors, but they are far from being the norm, which
explains my concern.
What I meant to add is that the "list of quotations" articles are
impossible to copy edit, and even if you try, you'll be instantly
reverted. As a result, our most contentious pieces are often nothing
more than, "A said X, while B said Y, but C did not concur, adding
that Z."