Full Quotes of articles

[Longasc]

It seems that full quotes of external articles become more and more popular.

I want to start a discussion about

a.) is a full quote permitted or legal at all?
b.) is it bad style?
c.) if you do a full quote, why not just stick to the link only?
d.) are people too lazy or inept to summarize simple issues within just 2-3 lines. Why do they need really long articles?

and

e.) do you read really long quotes at all, only if you are really interested, or do you usually ignore them?

 

[nonconformist]

It seems that full quotes of external articles become more and more popular.

I want to start a discussion about

a.) is a full quote permitted or legal at all?
b.) is it bad style?
c.) if you do a full quote, why not just stick to the link only?
d.) are people too lazy or inept to summarize simple issues within just 2-3 lines. Why do they need really long articles?

and

e.) do you read really long quotes at all, only if you are really interested, or do you usually ignore them?

Read this articles, by some sucky guy who think we're not good enough nfor him.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

It's easier than clicking links dirrectly and many times you need authentification (which is annoying). Anyway, you can just skip to the end of the article for the impressions of the poster.

As for me when I'm confronted with an extensive article I dent do shy away unless there's something really interesting...

 

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

I hate it when people make full quotes, i hardly ever read them and it often puts me off interesting threads. It would be a lot better (IMO) if the poster posted their view and a short quote ot two and then a link for reference...

 

[Yom]

a.) is a full quote permitted or legal at all?

As to whether or not they are legal: I'm pretty sure they are. You are not passing off the information as your own and providing a link to the source. How is that different from citing sources that you use in a paper or book?

b.) is it bad style?

Not unless the quote is very long. I tend to like it more than just posting the article, as the quote is clearly separated from the commentary of the poster.

c.) if you do a full quote, why not just stick to the link only?

As Aphex_Twin said, it's easier to just read it instead of clicking on the link (but you can still verify it if you want). Plus, you can just scroll up (if you're still on the first page of a thread) to look at the article instead of clicking on the link again or opening a new tab/window (though it's not that important).

d.) are people too lazy or inept to summarize simple issues within just 2-3 lines. Why do they need really long articles?

Yes, people are too lazy to do that, but oftentimes they do. Either way, people tend to read the article to get the full scoop on the subject, which is required for a meaningful discussion (most likely). The very long articles are usually either very interesting, or a subject that the reader feels very strongly about; unfortunately, they are usually not worth reading in their entireties.

e.) do you read really long quotes at all, only if you are really interested, or do you usually ignore them?

See below.

It's easier than clicking links dirrectly and many times you need authentification (which is annoying). Anyway, you can just skip to the end of the article for the impressions of the poster.

As for me when I'm confronted with an extensive article I dent do shy away unless there's something really interesting...

Seconded. I usually read long articles if their interesting, but I'll just skim or skip an unreasonably long article on a mundane or unappealing subject.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I would say that if you are starting a thread on a topic then a full quote of an article with the link is best. Responses would probably be best with just the applicable portions quoted with the link.

If the article is exceptionally long then a summary (usually the first paragraph) of the article mat be best.

 

[stormbind]

I normally condense the article into a few lines, include an image, and link to the original - almost always a reputable source of news.

When others quote a long article, I don't read it: Loss of formatting and accompanying images makes the text too boring for my easilly distracted mind

 

[Richard Cribb]

It seems that full quotes of external articles become more and more popular.

I want to start a discussion about

a.) is a full quote permitted or legal at all?
b.) is it bad style?
c.) if you do a full quote, why not just stick to the link only?
d.) are people too lazy or inept to summarize simple issues within just 2-3 lines. Why do they need really long articles?

and

e.) do you read really long quotes at all, only if you are really interested, or do you usually ignore them?

a) Yes.
b) No.
c) Because then more people will read it.
d) Are people to lazy and inept to read a whole article on an issue that may not necessarily be so simple?
e) If I post in a thread, I always try to read everything formerly posted.

 

[Fetus4188]

I prefer the article to be cut so that the main point comes across and unnecessary stuff is replaced by ellipsis. If an article is too long I won't even bother to read it.

 

[Longasc]

Citing sources is limited to 200 words in a row. People do not act according to this, but nobody cares.

I also want to add that a fullquote is considered bad style in the usenet. Some probably heard about it. Full-Quotes are rampant.

They are also rampant here. People do not value the subject they are writing about too high. The pointlessness of many full quotes is incredible.

I just read through a whole article about an US senator, the gist and only relevant information being that he let his old father die in a similar situation as Terri Shiavo.



Stop this. I hope at least some people think about it.

 

[JollyRoger]

As being just guilty of this, I gave it some thought of what to do when I started a thread with a full quote.

My options:

1. Just give my opinion with no quote or link.
2. Just give a link with my commentary.
3. Give a link and partial quotes.
4. Give the full article with a link

Number 1 was not enough. Number 2 is what I would have preferred, but I hate clicking links if I am unsure of where they lead too. Number 3 has it's merits, but then I could selectively edit out the counter-arguments that were available in the article. Number 4 seemed the best solution under the circumstances. People could read the article if they wanted or just skim it. One poster actually quoted a part of the article that I would have tempted to cut out if I had only quoted portions of the article.

Legally speaking, I think there may be limits that I crossed. I did provide a link to the source, but the length may have gone beyond fair use. Using it as a starting point of debate rather than as some sort of free and massive distribution scheme may protect me, but I am not 100% sure. I don't anticipate being sued or prosecuted for it, but I can deal with those circumstances in the event they occur.

 

[JollyRoger]

I just read through a whole article about an US senator, the gist and only relevant information being that he let his old father die in a similar situation as Terri Shiavo.

There were actually portions of that article that went counter to my commentary in the thread. If I had unfairly slashed the balancing points made by the article, I would not lived up to Faux News' slogan of being fair and balanced. I do see your points, however.