Quoting articles - please don't post full articles

Hey all, I've noticed lately that a number of people are posting full, and very long articles on babble. Not only is this a violation of copyright in many cases, but it also really disrupts the flow of discussion, even if copyright isn't an issue.

When posting an article, please just quote a relevant paragraph or maybe two that you want to highlight, and link to the article for those who would like to keep reading. If there's a lot in the article that you wish to highlight, then quote a little bit and post your own synopsis of the good stuff to look out for.

Remember, this is primarily a discussion forum, and cutting and pasting huge long articles isn't really discussing.

Comments

Submitted by N.Beltov on October 28, 2009 - 10:42am.

ditto.

Submitted by RevolutionPlease on December 17, 2009 - 9:52am.

Could you please also try to persuade users to use quote tags when posting content that is not their own.

Submitted by Unionist on December 17, 2009 - 9:52am.

Quote:

Good idea.

Submitted by j.m. on March 7, 2010 - 4:25pm.

I have a couple of statements and subsequent questions:

There are some threads that feature quotations from the same or from other threads, but are either done improperly by not using the [ q u o t e ] [ / q u o t e ] function, let alone the [ q u o t e = u s e r ] [ / q u o t e ] function. I find this really difficult to follow in both cases. Can people gently nudge those in dialogue to do this?

Second, are quotes from other threads acceptable? Often times another thread features content from a related thread and the genesis of the content cannot be determined (not even with the Ctrl + F) function. When this happens it is even more confusing to follow discussion.

I find that some of these quotes go under the radar (for their style) and leave forums rather difficult to follow. If it is policy not to quote from other threads then I think we are encouraging people to bring in content under the radar, or at least not acknowledge that it is from a different thread. I can see the problem with allowing content to be brought in (and encouraged to be properly cited, including the original thread) as it produces the effect of formally acknowledging the ability to open pandora's box.

I hope the first item is resolvable, but what about the second? Is there anything that can be done to improve this?

Submitted by scott on March 7, 2010 - 9:45pm.

Why would it be a problem to quote from other threads? If it is clear that it is a quote, and the source is linked I am OK with it. As far as I am concerned all posters should link to their sources, whatever they may be, and cite them if they are not on the web. This would reduce the incidence of posters just making things up (which has been known to happen) or enlessly repeating some factoid that is generally believed to be true, just because it has been repeated so many times.

j.m. wrote:

... I think we are encouraging people to bring in content under the radar, or at least not acknowledge that it is from a different thread.

I think that the lack of a quote function in the software is partly to blame for this, plus a general laziness.

Quote:

I can see the problem with allowing content to be brought in (and encouraged to be properly cited, including the original thread) as it produces the effect of formally acknowledging the ability to open pandora's box.

I don't understand the point your are trying to make here.

Submitted by Skinny Dipper on March 7, 2010 - 8:58pm.

If you are unable to use the quote tags or don't know the HTML tags, then take any essential text that you have copied and italicize it with quotes around it.

"Could you please also try to persuade users to use quote tags when posting content that is not their own." (RevolutionPlease)

Submitted by j.m. on March 7, 2010 - 9:48pm.

scott wrote:

Why would it be a problem to quote from other threads? If it is clear that it is a quote, and the source is linked I am OK with it. As far as I am concerned all posters should link to therr sources, whatever they may be, and cite them if they are not on the web. This would reduce the incidence of posters just making things up (which has been known to happen) or enlessly repeating some factoid that is generally believed to be true, just because it has been repeated so many times.

I don't disagree with this either, and I agree that it is about avoiding the generation of false statements. I have seen it mentioned in a couple of threads in the past (hence why I cannot recall which ones) that it is best not to bring things over from finished or earlier threads (although to my knowledge this might be qualified as posts that were enraging).

Scott wrote:

I think that the lack of a quote function in the software is partly to blame for this, plus a general laziness.

Indeed

j.m. wrote:

Scott wrote:

I don't understand the point your are trying to make here.

As I should have said: bringing in content from other threads allows people the ability to rehash past discussions, some of which might have been, or should have been, laid to rest. Again, I am still under the impression that it is a faux-pas to quote from previous threads, and thus cite them properly (with names and links).

Submitted by j.m. on March 7, 2010 - 9:48pm.

Skinny Dipper wrote:

If you are unable to use the quote tags or don't know the HTML tags, then take any essential text that you have copied and italicize it with quotes around it.

"Could you please also try to persuade users to use quote tags when posting content that is not their own." (RevolutionPlease)

Cool

Submitted by lagatta on March 24, 2010 - 3:16pm.

I posted a short, non-copyrighted communiqué from Amir Khadir of Québec solidaire - because I don't see any quote tag on the screen.

I have terrible problems logging in and had to go to another computer to be able to access babble, so I'm writing very quickly.

Submitted by E.P.Houle on March 27, 2010 - 8:05pm.

I found the 'Ayn Rand in Uganda' totally approprate as did M. Neonen. perhaps some flexibility would help our common dreams.