Fromthis page of a long train wreck on Pit Bulls. cougar, as pointed out in my post 696 was pasting in expanses from a cited article and had edited one portion, eliminating one fact and placing a different phrase in instead with some significant different implication in the context.
The ruling was that “changing text in a cite isn’t against the rules.”
It is really okay to say, cite, say the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and intentionally write down something different than what is in the article cited? We are not talking about a bracketted comment, or bolding added (with a comment after making such clear that bolding was added), but a change in the content of the quoted material.
Really?
In this context the point is minor. But that being within the rules for this board surprises me.
If it’s not against the rules, we need a new rule.
I suppose it would be possible to do an end run around such a rule by editing a Wikipedia page to say what one wanted, but I doubt many people would bother to go that far just to make a point here.
My two cents worth on it is, if it’s not against the rules maybe that rule should be revisited. Especially since it has been brought up in such a public way.