Quoting guidelines

[KL-666]

Re: Quoting guidelines

Postby Lydiot » Wed May 18, 2016 9:09 pm

There should be something in the guidelines about quoting and keeping the original context. Or at least moderators having the capacity to do so.

http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9288&p=285711#p285711

That is what i would have liked to have said. Always keep context. If it is a pm, say so. If it can be linked, do so. Whether it is an external article, or a post in this forum.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

Well, this conversation is also getting "interesting" on the other forum.

What often happens is that change in people is not recognized because earlier experience still prevail. Ending in a missed chance, if it was this time for real. No one needs to be scared to trust. If the trust is harmed, simply retreat it. But never attempting to trust gets you nowhere for sure.

I think Hooray made a good attempt at trusting independents, who say what they think to both sides.

http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9288&p=285790#p285785

Unfortunately, he mentioned me as one of them, which makes my story now less trustworthy . Let's just hope he keeps the positiveness to reach out.

Lately i did not read every post on the other forum. But i get the impression of Curt, that he also wants to stop inserting vicious remarks in his messages. The last messages i saw were plain calls for reason.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

And btw, you guys may never get to an understanding about who should change something to make fgmembers-fgaddon work. But that should not prevent you from getting on speaking terms.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

I think proper quoting should have a link to original source, whenever able.
Also, proper quoting etiquette implies that you quote enough to maintain the original intended meaning of the person being quoted (a.k.a keep the damn context)

We've seen in our community overusing the cheap-trick of chopped-quoting. Where you cling yourself in a reductionist quoting that shifts the meaning of the original context, into appearing to have a different meaning of intention. This is not a brilliant invention of their own, but a long-time known technique common in unprofessional journalisms, and when caught, and caught repetively and exhaustively, it should undermine the trust of the sourcing.

Let me give you an example:

I can quote bugman like this:

Israel very carefully designed FGMEMBERS

IH-COL says : Yeah! Thanks for recognizing it.


**

In reality, If I am fair at it, instead of attempting distorting reality, and distorting Bugman intentions, the quote should actually maintain context, and when appropriate, contain a linked reference to a more complete source (As to allow readers to verify the quote)

In a fair case, what Bugman actually meant is this:

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 85#p285662

The objections are to the tactics used and the deliberate aims of minimising or completely cutting off contributions upstream to the core FlightGear infrastructure for the sole purpose of rendering it irrelevant, so that Israel can have his infrastructure as the de-facto FlightGear infrastructure. This is not something that would be of any concern for a user. But it has long term implications for the code and content developments in the FlightGear project, as it drains resources and creates deliberately constructed conflict. All of this simply comes down to how Israel very carefully designed FGMEMBERS to advance his goal of replacing the core infrastructure.

And in this case scenery, a fair quote, will reveal the real intent of Bugman, which oppose to what I'd like, he suggests, that the sole purpose of FGMEMBERS is undermine FG structure, and future. With a fair quote, we can, definitely understand that Bugman is, as usual, just spreading misinformation, and FUD to politicize users against using FGMEMBERS.

[Lydiot]

Well, Curt and Torsten and whomever closed this thread and the other all agree that it's ok when Bugman does that. To them quoting a bigger chunk like you did is excessive and makes the forum cluttered. And, of course, since they all agree on Bugman's interpretation it's not a problem for them.

What's especially telling is that they have a damn section that's specifically about forum issues, and in that section they have a thread specifically about quoting guidelines, and then they decide that talking about that is off-topic!

"Dishonest" or "dumb"? Both?

Very unbecoming of them at any rate.

[IAHM-COL]

I saw that.

My feeling is that they have this "Peace is above all" attitude; when it comes to people bringing a different perspective of their skewed reality.

When they are sustaining their view, then the tone is different, and of the form "Facts are facts"

[KL-666]

I fail to see the quoting topic being closed.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

See "Topic Locked" at the bottom

[KL-666]

Oh yes, I expected a comment of a green man at locking. Bit Sneaky this way.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

Now onto the "Technical Question" Issue Lydiot raised.
The problem is, a forum can implement a

NEW RULES! (in the tone of Bill Mahler) non sense when it comes to, per example, implementing a proper culture of Quoting.

But the rub, is, How do you enforce it?

I see only peer-pressure, and an atmosphere of open honesty when you can call a cow- a cow; it's the only solution to such misbehavior in the nettiquete of quoting.
Any unenforceable rule only serves the purpose of exercising alfa-male demostrations.