In a locked thread, we were reminded about the rule about altering quotes, as follows:
There seems to be a sense among the mods that it technically violates the bolded portion if I quote part of a person’s post without using “snip” or “…”
I disagree, for three reasons.
- The rule uses the word “may,” not “must.” If “must” is intended, this should change. But it shouldn’t, for the next two reasons.
- Normal editorial rules don’t require a reporter (for example) to indicate that a quote in an article is only a portion of the interview. That would be ridiculous. It’s understood that the reporter conducts a full interview and then excerpts only the quotes from the interview that fit in the story. Normal editorial rules suggest you use ellipses to indicate that portions of a quote within the quote are removed.
So if someone tells me, “I go for penguins. O lord, I go for penguins. Penguins are so sensitive, penguins are so sensitive, penguins are so sensitive to my needs!” I may quote them as follows:
and I don’t need ellipses. But I would need them in this quote:
Requiring ellipses in the first quote is not standard editorial practice in any publication I’ve ever read.
- This is not necessary to fix any problem. On the rare occasions where someone quotes out of context to deliberately distort another poster, that can be addressed there, without referring to a technicality.
So: the rule doesn’t support this interpretation, it’s not standard practice, and it’s a solution in search of a problem.
Puzzlegal suggested that (and watch my lack of ellipses here, despite quoting a portion of her full post)
I encourage the mods to come down on the side of leaving things be. This is not a change in modding that we need.