[WikiEN-l] What to do about our writing quality?

[Ray Saintonge]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 09:29 PM 5/24/2008, WJhonson at 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