Wiki Newspaper Analogy

Think about the editor of any newspaper article that reports peoples' words. Such reduction and paraphrasing goes on, without any special symbols. The only difference on Wiki, in my scheme of things, is the ability of the original author to hit back. And that's very significant. --RichardDrake

Authors have a chance before printing to review the edits. Also, they can hit back more steadily in the newspaper industry because they are physically in touch with their editors. Newspapers also strip bylines on articles that have been rewritten sufficiently.

All very relevant, thanks. Our traditions will be different but I'd expect to learn a lot from these ones. But I was thinking more about someone interviewed by a journalist who doesn't work for the newspaper and is quoted. It's actually happened to me and the results are often, well, surprising.

The interviewee has no authorship of the article in question. The person is merely being (mis)quoted. The quoter has authorship and responsibility. In most traditions with free press, (harmful) misquoting is a crime, albeit rarely enforced past the page 78 retraction four weeks later. This, by the way, is one of the major problems of RealWorld media and certainly not something worth emulating in a new medium.

Agreed again. The new medium here should be much better. But I also think "(harmful) misquoting" is helpful to the refactoring challenge here.

Helpful? How so?

Ok the analogy breaks but is still useful. In the (slowly emerging or maybe not) RichardDrake scheme of things, when we contribute signed stuff to Wiki we're just as much aiming to cooperate with other authors as when putting stuff in anonymously. Our ego doesn't matter, the quality and readability does. But our signature is sometimes an important part of the signal that needs to be preserved, even when the words need to change to produce better overall pages. Those that undertake such tricky (and hitherto very thankless) tasks are in roughly the same position, temporarily, as the journalist or editor dealing with the words of a third party. They shouldn't "harmfully misquote". But they can make some changes ...

Not to testimonials, however, because then they'd lose their value. Moreover, you might change their meaning, which invalidates the testimonial and reflects badly on the signatory. Similarly, you dilute the meaning of the signature by altering the words the author attached to it. Strip the byline if you've significantly changed the words. I think the problem lies in "what is significant?" I'd posit a change is significant when, if the most original text is placed next to the text after any number of edits, any rational person could not say, "Obviously they are the same text," without any trepidation.

Testimonials as in job references?

No, as in testimony. Words that require a name to have meaning. An example (but not limited to this form): "I did this, that and the other thing. Then, people did foo, bar, and baz to me. It made me feel zeph, smu and moo. I think they are really qux, quux, and quuux."

Okay, thanks. Interacting with you like this makes me feel zeph, smu but never moo by the way.

So not all signed contributions on Wiki are testimonial right? There again where they are I'm happy with strip the byline if you've significantly changed the words. Even when there not there must be limits. It's not mega easy to know where the line should be drawn in either case right? Or do newspapers find it easy to recruit and train really good editors?

No, not all signed contributions are testimony. For instance, on this page, nothing I've written is testimony. It doesn't require my name to have meaning. Writing from a personal standpoint. Testimony as in courts, if you want to look at it that way. Or, if the author's reputation would be on the line for stating it.

I'm not sure how newspapers find good editors. From doing it, it's very difficult. [that was "testimony" by the way, because it was personal, except that it wasn't really important enough to sign] It's one of those jobs like programming where you need to apprentice to someone to learn it. Too many social ramifications, too much to lose if you screw up. And not a hell of a lot to gain if you do it right.

By the way, I may be arguing with you personally, but the arguments I'm putting forward are meant to apply to everyone. Indeed, I've only signed my contributions to take responsibility, not because I meant this to be a one-on-one. Don't let it make you feel smu. Zeph, perhaps.

Zeph it is. Very valuable. "Dark" as my daughter would say. [TeenageSlang]