Mod smackdown:
I thought the purpose of brackets was to permit a writer to make either an editorial comment or alteration of text inside the quotes. Is the following a misquote? (from the OP):
I can see how editorializing might be out of bounds in GQ, but I don’t think that was truly misquoting.
I have to agree. I think samclem’s major motivation was to smackdown on a potentially divisive debate popping up in GQ, and that was a proper motivation. I also think that lissener’s post was a wee bit snarky.
But a “misquote”, IMO, is an attempt to place words in another’s mouth, to attempt to mislead others as to what the original writer actually wrote. No one was going to be so confused by lissener’s post.
Sua
I thik it’s a matter of misquoting for the sake of being an ass that is the issue. The reason for bracketing is so that you can chop up and individually reply to separate ideas and such.
To save the SDMB’s database and simple vertical space, I’ve on occasion done something like:
[quote=Erudite Poster]
<insert post #4 from above here>
[quote]
And then responded to the body–which I believe is fine since I am not misrepresenting what was said nor trying to be an ass; rather just that quoting the full thing would have been too much. Putting in, instead, [blah blah blah] is rude, and certainly not something that should be in a GQ thread. Everyone in GQ is theoretically doing his best to be helpful and give the OP as much information as he can. Even if in the end that person was wrong, belittling what was theoretically a selfless act is rude.
Doh
How long till someone responds to the OP with:
?
I got smacked for just humrously hiding 2 words in someones Quote on looking for a thread about a post count. It was in no way offensive to anyone. The Poster Quoted and my self were obviously in on the joke.
This is not said as complaint but as a WAG that they treat changing any quote at all very seriosly.
In one of the stickies they mention you should inication with ellispes … or in my case …snip… when you are taking only part of a quote and they mention that if you Bold or otherwise change a quote you should put in a disclaimer like {My Bolding}.
I don’t know if that was helpful at all, I hope it was.
These stickies have some details: This is the offical stance in the thread but I was Emailed an additional Clarification.
I can’t reference the Email unfortunately it is on my Home PC.
Perhaps Lissener could have added a disclaimer and been ok.
Jim
From Giraffe, in a pit thread on this very subject from a little over three months ago:
According to Giraffe, lissener was well within the rules.
I don’t personally see anything wrong with the second example, either.
Silver Fire, different forum, different guidelines. While I was taken aback at first, I quickly realized that, yes, the Mod in question was trying to rein in what was about to be a Debate in GQ. And **lissner ***was *being snarky - he could have simply started his post with roger thornhill’s name, much like I did in this post. He didn’t need to quote anything at all to make his point.
At least in academic writing, you can use brackets to alter text providing you don’t change its meaning - they are only used to clarify something that may be unclear out of context. For instance: Excalibre said, “[T]hey [square brackets] are only used to clarify something that may be unclear out of context.” That’s fine. But this would not be: Excalibre said, “[Y]ou can use brackets to alter text [in any way you please].”
You should not use square brackets to insert editorialisms; note that even changes in capitalization should be noted (just to make it clearer that the quote doesn’t start with the beginning of the sentence.) If you change the meaning of a quote at all with square brackets, that’s considered misquoting even if your own insertions are clearly marked because the purpose of brackets is to make a quote clearer, not to modify it.
I’m not saying the rule ought to be exactly the same around here, but it does strike me as reasonable - you can quote someone and then say, “Wow, you really revealed yourself to be a jackass when you said that.” But that’s a big step from doing the following:
Lemme get this straight. **Excalibre **is arguing for the standards of academic writing in GQ? Ohhh, Ex, how does one keep track of your changeability?
In the second place, it should be quite obvious even to you that the snarky point I was trying to make was that “blah blah blah” did NOT in fact alter the meaning of roger thornhill’s words; that my snarky implication was that that’s all his words appeared to mean.
In any case, samclem’s interjection did not address my snarkiness–which was present, but mild even by GQ standards–but my “quoting” style. With Giraffe’s clarification in mind, I’m bewildered. Nonetheless, I’ve noted the admonition and will keep it in mind. I apologize if anyone was confused by my post.
Please note the specifics of samclem’s post: for quoting style, not tone. And please note the rampant snarkiness of GQ, which has never been against the rules. The recent episode with **brightpenny **gave ample opportunity for such a distinction of tone in GQ posts, but even after that situation, no such distinction has been made. Also please note, my snark at roger thornhill’s expense was incredibly mild, even by GQ standards.
I’m not arguing here, I’m stating the only set of standards I’m familiar with for the use of quotes. I don’t know what journalistic standards are, or I might have mentioned them as well. I didn’t even read the original thread, so I have no idea what you did. As far as I can tell, I’ve gotten reprimanded for doing something similar, but I agree that it’s probably easiest for everyone to use quotes strictly.
I don’t know why you’re trying to start something with me. I have a strained tolerance for you; as far as I can tell, a lot of people have a real antipathy towards you. You might as well not try to start shit for no reason with one of the few people who doesn’t hate you yet.
Um, yeah, your point being? Square brackets are not ordinarily used to inject editorials into quotes. You’re saying, in effect, ‘Oh, but I was only doing it to be snarky!’ Well, um, duh. And that’s not what square brackets are for; as far as I’ve seen, use of them for that purpose has never been permitted around here.
I’m not trying to start anything with you, Ex. You’re being outrageously hypocritical. If you want to kick brightpenny around in a GQ snarkfest, “academic standards” are the furthest thing from your mind.
And the practice of inserting snarky editorials like “[snip ludicrous mischaracterization here]” is common practice, even in GQ. Fine, I’ll avoid all such usages from now on so I don’t accidentally cross a line again. But for you to pretend that you’ve never seen such a thing before is ridiculous.
It is this intensity of self-awareness for which we love you, lissener!
Daniel
Cool your jets, dude. There’s nothing hypocritical about pointing out what the standards are supposed to be in one context while ignoring them in another. Now, if you have an example of Excalibre misusing the brackets in the manner described, then you’ll have an argument. As it stands, you got nothing. Really, your habit of starting pointless arguments over petty issues grow tiresome.
Look at that thread. Do you see any posts from me? A single one? Nope, didn’t think so. Good job, though. Try to restart that pile-on. You’re not making yourself look any better.
When did I pretend such a thing? Didn’t I say in my last post that I’ve been reprimanded for doing so?
You either have a very difficult time reading or you are outrageously mendacious, to the point that you don’t care that it’s obvious you’re a liar. Knock it the fuck off. I was not trying to start anything with you; your unwarranted attacks do not make you look better.
Here’s the background: the whole time I was witnessing the Excalibre/brightpenny debacle, I was thinking of the time that squid doctor visited GQ and immediately got snarked upon. And I was thinking, wouldn’t it be nice if GQ had higher standards of behavior? Wouldn’t it be nice if newbies and visiting scientists didn’t have to undergo the kind of hazing that’s perfectly accepted there? Wouldn’t GQ be a much more valuable venue if it DID have the standards of academic publication? At least the standards of tone and discourse? This while reading page after page of Excalibre (and of course others) fighting for their right to be rude.
Then to come here and see Excalibre arguing for the standards of academic publication struck me as hypocritical. That’s all. I suppose I should’ve written a 500 word post with all the background necessary to put my comment in context.
Has that ever worked for you? I mean, I know that you sometimes write those treatises, but when was the last time you wrote one and had people say, “Gee, I see where you’re coming from now”?
Far better, I think, to develop a knack of saying, “Sorry, posted before I thought,” and back away when you say something indefensible.
Daniel
You might have a good point. I have seen GQ & GD cases where some posters are remarkably rude to new posters. I find it especially embarrassing when they are rude to Poster from outside the US, Canada & UK.
I think Excalibre did hold the bulk of his rudeness for the pit where it belonged however. Maybe I am wrong on that part.
Jim
I am certain I’ve seen an editor’s remark placed inside square brackets to comment on something the author has written just before a book or column goes to press.
Then there’s this:
Surely that is an editorial comment. Anyway, the bracketed remark is within quoted material. Did Cecil misquote the author? Absolutely not, and how can we tell? From the use of square brackets! I just want to make sure we can continue to use the square brackets to indicate that, whatever is contained there in, does not belong to the quoted material.