Please do not quote entire articles in posts

[innonimatu]

I understand the fear of litigation motivating this. I wouldn't be concerned myself, but I can't demand that the people running CFC act the same way. However, just a few paragraphs as a general rule really is too restrictive. And probably unnecessary, as most quoted pieces in OT are in one way or another about politics or some other promotion of ideas and we can assume that the authors of such original pieces would want them spread. For example, I quoted liberally from an interview to start this thread and I really think the author would never have minded in the least.

Full attribution, and not quoting the whole thing, those are rules of "good manners" online, regardless of what copyright laws may say. But if we are to quote anything we must be able to quote enough so that proper context is given to the readers here. Otherwise what incentive would anyone have to follow the link to the original piece, and then discuss it?

I think that posters should indeed be reminded to carefully evaluate how much to quote on a case by case basis, and when mods feel that a quote is "dangerous" they shouldn't be shy about cutting the quote and asking people to check the original source. It's a better remedy than simply closing those threads.
As Defiant said, aim your discontent towards the actual cause of this issue - copyright laws gone wild.

 

[Mise]

I guess you can read that as saying that this move will improve thread quality, but that's not what it is. 'As a positive byproduct' seems to me to be saying 'on the bright side', which necessarily implies that what has come before is not really a good/pleasant/positive thing. And what immediately preceded was this:

Directly indicating that the change in enforcement policy is due to concerns over copyright infringement. The rest of the post doesn't read to me as BSing anyone, nor does the language of the rule itself. Although not quoting the entire article gives the opportunity for people to cherry pick, you do not have to diminish the quality of your OPs by abridging the article. You are not forced to cherry pick (because you are still quite able to provide the context). It is entirely possible to craft a good OP without posting the entire relevant article (and you can in fact create a better OP if you do a good, unbiased job of abridging particularly long articles). Given that you can't post an entire article, we want to encourage this as the next best thing, which seems to fit with encouraging 'posts that pick out specific lines in an article that they want to discuss, or that highlight the point they are trying to make, [which] are much more clear and easier to read.' It also seems to fit with encouraging abridgements that 'help give some focus to your thread' and that 'give the context of what you wish to discuss' (another part of rule 6).

"Picking out specific lines in an article that they want to discuss" means "getting rid of anything that they don't want people to be talking about -- i.e. the part of the article that would undermine their point. "Highlighting the point they are trying to make" means "only posting the parts of the article that back up the point you're trying to make". Both those things encourage cherrypicking. You're saying it's perfectly fine to cherry pick an article, because removing dissenting viewpoints from an article would both "pick out specific lines that they want to discuss" and "highlight the point they are trying to make". Cherry picking "helps focus discussion", that's the point of cherry picking. Why encourage that? There are many ways of slimming down an article to 1 or 2 paragraphs without cherry-picking quotes from within the article - why not mention that?

If the rule is just about copyright issues then why does it talk about "helping to focus the discussion"? I don't see how cherrypicking helps focus discussion. Why can't you get rid of that part, and replace it with something encouraging an unbiased, open-ended OPs? I mean, if you foresaw that it would lead to more cherrypicking, why not encourage us not to cherry pick?

There are just so many ways you could have worded this that wouldn't have encouraged cherry-picking... Hell, just saying "but please do not cherry pick quotes that fit your viewpoint" would have been enough.

 

[Quackers]

I think Mise is right and i like his passionate posts in the thread

I think it's a bit dishonest of the mods to say this will lead to "more focused" discussion or whatever the line was. A simple "we're afraid of litigation, minimise your OP news source" would serve us better. Moderators should engage us as equals and allies.

 

[Moss]

My apologies for being unclear and poorly wording my OP. The part about the "positive byproduct" of this rule was strictly my opinion and not meant to be part of the rule. I have changed the wording of the rule to hopefully make it more clear as well.

6a. When posting a discussion topic originating from a media article, you MUST post a link to the article as well give the context of what you wish to discuss. This helps give focus to your thread. Posting a link and just "discuss" will result in a locked thread.

6b. For that same link, do NOT quote or post entire articles. Please only quote or post the amount of the article needed for the discussion you wish to have and the point you wish to make. This applies to all posts, not just OPs. This rule helps avoids copyright issues. Initial offenders will be warned with repeat offenders being more severely disciplined.

Again, the only post part of articles rule is strictly due to copyright reasons.

 

[Skwink]

Did we have a problem where a site complained about us doing this?

 

[classical_hero]

"Picking out specific lines in an article that they want to discuss" means "getting rid of anything that they don't want people to be talking about -- i.e. the part of the article that would undermine their point. "Highlighting the point they are trying to make" means "only posting the parts of the article that back up the point you're trying to make". Both those things encourage cherrypicking. You're saying it's perfectly fine to cherry pick an article, because removing dissenting viewpoints from an article would both "pick out specific lines that they want to discuss" and "highlight the point they are trying to make". Cherry picking "helps focus discussion", that's the point of cherry picking. Why encourage that? There are many ways of slimming down an article to 1 or 2 paragraphs without cherry-picking quotes from within the article - why not mention that?

If the rule is just about copyright issues then why does it talk about "helping to focus the discussion"? I don't see how cherrypicking helps focus discussion. Why can't you get rid of that part, and replace it with something encouraging an unbiased, open-ended OPs? I mean, if you foresaw that it would lead to more cherrypicking, why not encourage us not to cherry pick?

There are just so many ways you could have worded this that wouldn't have encouraged cherry-picking... Hell, just saying "but please do not cherry pick quotes that fit your viewpoint" would have been enough.

Generally when you start a thread, you are starting one with a certain idea that you want to be pushing. So normally the articles that used are ones that are favourable to the thread starter in the first place. I just think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The whole point of OT is to discuss things and getting people to read the whole article sometimes will take a long time, so it is a good skill of a writer to summarise what he is trying to get at. While you might not agree with the policy for the reason they gave, generally it is a good idea to just give highlights of what you are discussing, rather than give us a wall of text, since most times it will get ignored, unless you really want to discuss the issue.

 

[Atticus]

What? That's a ridiculous thing to say. You might as well say that about any ******ed post that someone makes. "If there's nobody on OT to check that the OP isn't blatantly lying, there's no hope for OT, no matter what the rules are. Therefore, we should encourage people to state as many false things as possible in their posts, in order to keep OT on its toes."

Why create extra work for posters? Why ask people to make biased posts, and then tell us, "well, if you can't even be bothered to check the quotes for bias, then you're all hopeless"? Utter nonsense.


Except now, you're actively encouraging people to cherry pick articles, and remove anything that doesn't serve their agenda. This may be necessary and right for legal reasons, but it will clearly degrade the quality of threads.

As I said before, I'd be perfectly fine with this if you just did it out of fear of being sued. I'd happily stand by such a decision, if that were the thinking behind it. But if OT moderators think that biased and cherry picked OPs will lead to better threads then it's the OT moderators that have no hope, not us.


This is just the same nonsense that Atticus is saying. You're trying to tell me that, if people go out of their way to cherry pick an article and make a biased OP, then the extra effort required to make a stupid post will result in better discussion. That's nonsense, complete and utter drivel. Why don't we encourage people to just post outright lies in their OPs? Surely that extra thought and understanding required to make believable lies will result in better quality discussions! If the OP understands that he is posting blatant lies, then it is more likely that others will as well, and so you will get a better discussion. Right?

You say that it takes more effort to cherry pick an article and make it utterly biased, and therefore that extra effort will make for better discussions, but just because you put effort into something doesn't mean that that effort is going towards something productive. You can put a lot of effort into calling me a complete and utter moron, maybe write it in iambic pentameter or make the first letter of every sentence spell out "MISE IS A COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON", but that's not going to magically make a thread better, is it?

We shouldn't be encouraging effort in the wrong directions. Creating a cherry picked, biased OP is the wrong direction, and OT moderators should not be encouraging that. OT moderators should be encouraging positive efforts, such as creating an unbiased, well rounded OP, not telling people to leave out the bits that they don't want people to talk about and only focusing on the bits that serve their agenda. They should be explicitly telling people to make their OP as unbiased, fair and open-ended as possible. They are doing the exact opposite, and this is stupid and wrong.


OT moderators are not in a legal vacuum, and if this policy was solely to prevent copyright issues, then I've already said that that's fine by me. But apparently, OT moderators truly believe that cherry-picked articles will benefit OT. That's just stupid.


CFC may, possible, get "bitten", to varying and debatable degrees, at some unspecified point in the future. But this policy will, with 100% certainty, hurt OT, and it will do so right now. Not "maybe" "in the future", but will, right now.

And in any case, you may believe that the long-term survival depends on adhering to copyright laws. You may even be able to convince me of that as well. But that doesn't mean that cherry-picking articles to create biased OPs will magically result in good discussion. I'm quite open to honest trade-offs: I'm happy to say that we need to stop posting entire articles, because of copyright laws, or because OT's long term survival depends on it. But for god's sake, be honest about it. Don't try and tell me that deliberate bias and cherry-picking is a good thing. Don't punch me in the face then tell me it's for my own good, because it'll teach me to duck next time.

Posters aren't asked to make biased posts. They are asked not to quote the whole article. IT's the same thing when you are writing any piece of text: to editorial pages, academic dissertation, essay, anything: you don't quote the whole thing, just the relevant parts and give the reference.

I see this alike to youtube videos too: it would be better if instead of just posting a video people gave short explanation of what it contains. It's nicer o know why you should watch the video. It's equally nice to know why you should read the article. I think it's pretty much common sense that if you're going to discuss it, you're going to at least take a glance of it.

Also, as I said, I'm not writing this as a moderator, but as a poster. And I do agree with Innonimatu that the upper amount of quotation should be context dependent.

 

[Mise]

My apologies for being unclear and poorly wording my OP. The part about the "positive byproduct" of this rule was strictly my opinion and not meant to be part of the rule. I have changed the wording of the rule to hopefully make it more clear as well.



Again, the only post part of articles rule is strictly due to copyright reasons.

Thanks Moss! This new wording is much better

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For Classical and Atticus, since I still believe they don't get the irritation ...

Several people have said how they like this new rule because they don't like to read walls of text. No one ever forced them to, so they always had the option of not reading the wall of text and not engage in the thread with such an OP. Or engage in it, not read the OP and run the risk of saying something that's already covered in the OP or contrary to the OP.

That's fine.

On the other hand there are people who do not mind to read a wall of text. The walls of text aren't usually that huge to me, and it still usually doesn't take more than a few minutes of focus to read through it. The upside to me is being more informed. When all the information is contained in the OP is easier to refer to and leads to less ambiguous discussion. How often when just a small part is quoted do we see people drawing the wrong conclusion in thread because they indeed didn't bother to click the link and read that wall of text there?

Point being, the wall of text still exists. It only exists off site. Point being those who prefer shorter quotations in the OP, still can go ahead and always could do just this. Those of us who rather have all the information available in the OP, can not do it any more. So they (we) lose that option.

It is kind of annoying to hear people state: It's great you guys can't do that any more because I don't like it. Or, this is a good thing, because I don't like it.

It can't be a good thing. It just can not. Even if you prefer short snippets out of an article posted in the OP instead of the whole thing, I cannot imagine why you would find a rule that forces people to write less informative OP's against their will is a good thing. Remember that for you, nothing has changed. For us, an option was taken away. The reasons are understandable, but losing a degree of freedom in addressing a topic can not ever be a good thing. Diversity in posting is good. I wouldn't want a rule that stated you are always forced to post complete articles, although I'd prefer it, it would take away an option. Even though I would think it would improve debate, I would not like that rule.

Less options is bad no matter where you preference lies.


Now for some shameless sucking up to mods.
Cami, I like your honesty. Moss I like you reaction to the feedback. Atticus ... I like your avatar.

 

[Silurian]

One thing; I do not assume that this rule applies only to OPs. It would not make sense anyway as someone would just post the whole article on the third or fourth post.

That is correct. This applies to any post and is not limited to OPs.

People seem to have missed this point.


Regarding cherry picking parts of an article to twist it to support a point of view wouldn't that be regarded as trolling.

 

[Atticus]

Ziggy, if you read my posts more carefully, you'll notice that I've never said that this is a good policy, just that I like more OPs which don't quote the whole article. I wouldn't mind if quoting whole articles was allowed, if the most relevant parts of it were bolded. Anyhow, it won't be, but I don't find it very big effort to click a link.

Furthermore, more options isn't always better: 50 rows of smilies in the sig would certainly be more options, but very few wouls consider it better. Also, there are threads which are pretty bad because they contain a copy-pasted article with command: "discuss".

I like my avatar too.

EDIT: Where the hell did that red diamond come from? Don't take it as indicative of anything.

 

[GoodGame]

You guys should probably be less disgruntled with the rule, site, and moderators, and aim your discontent towards the actual cause of this issue.

+1 Support the EFF I guess.


I'd say it is sloppy to wholesale re-post an article though. Better to post the link and a few salient paragraphs, as long as you actually have read and understood the whole article.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

Don't see why there's a 3 pages long discussion on this. Copyright laws are copyright laws. If you don't like them, campaign to get them changed.

Several people have said how they like this new rule because they don't like to read walls of text. No one ever forced them to, so they always had the option of not reading the wall of text and not engage in the thread with such an OP. Or engage in it, not read the OP and run the risk of saying something that's already covered in the OP or contrary to the OP.

Well... when I write something, I try to write in such a way that the text gets read and is appreciated by whoever I'm writing to. Writing in a way that's hard for others to follow, for then to tell people to read other threads if they don't like it... well, it's not against forum rules, but it's a poor way to promote your point or share whatever you're trying to share.

It can't be a good thing. It just can not. Even if you prefer short snippets out of an article posted in the OP instead of the whole thing, I cannot imagine why you would find a rule that forces people to write less informative OP's against their will is a good thing.

Practice effective writing. You should be able to cover the point of the article and its most important parts without quoting the whole thing. I've never had a problem with going to a third party site to read an article anywayu.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

never mind ...

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Thread unstickied as most should have seen this by now.

 

[Disgustipated]

I think it's kind of silly, but hey, I'm no lawyer. I say if you have a blurb on the bottom of the article stating where it came from, it should be okay. Otherwise maybe you can say you are plagiarizing the article without giving credit to the author.

I admit I didn't see this thread before I made my thread this morning. For some reason, my brain has a habit of ignoring stickied threads and skip down to the actual threads.