Editing Other Peoples Posts (via Quotes)

[TAWP]

We all know that when you quote someones post you can edit the content of the quoted segment. Usually it is a good thing since you can remove everything not directly related to what you are responding to (and remove all previous nested quotes). However some members take it to their mission to annoy people by editing the quotes to distort what was actually said.

Since this practise show up at times, and I'm not talking about the humorous versions of writing *fixed* to highlight some funny angle in posts between friends, and in heated topics - often adding more fuel to the flames - what is the admins position of this practise?

[Kerryd]

From what I've seen, the practise is definitely frowned upon when noticed.

But that's just it. Someone has to notice and bring it to the attention of those concerned. I don't think anyone here has the time to review every quote and quote-of-quote (etc) to see if any changes have been made from the original.

If I noticed it done to something I wrote, I would report it. My comments when reporting such an incident would depend on how severe the changes were, and in what light the changes then put me in.

It would be up to the gang in blue or red to determine what should happen after that.

[Old Croc]

I once had someone alter one of my posts this way to make it look like I was critising admin.

He and I had exchanged words on several matters previously and I regarded him as a bit of a cyber enemy on the forum. I considered it to be an attempt to get me suspended or worse.

I protested the matter very loudly.

If it's not done in fun it is a cowardly thing to do.

Edited November 27, 2008 by Old Croc

[endure]

No it's not acceptable and we'd appreciate you hitting the Report button if you see it happening.

[Maestro]

Snipping text from a quote and leaving only the text passage relevant to your reply is good netiquette and is strongly encouraged.

Modifying the text in the quote to make it appear that the member in question wrote something else is criminal.

Otherwise altering the text of a quote (changing text format, adding text or one’s own reply into the quote, etc) is bad netiquette and should never be done. As a moderator, when I see this I simply delete the post in question.

There are some members who quote the entire, lengthy post and in the quote highlight the text passage that is relevant to the reply. This is wrong and is bad netiquette. The correct thing to do is snip all text in the quote that is not relevant to the reply.

--

Maestro

[dantilley]

Otherwise altering the text of a quote (changing text format, adding text or one’s own reply into the quote, etc) is bad netiquette and should never be done.

Not sure I completely agree with that - it can be useful to quote the sentence you want to respond to but then highlight the particular part of the sentence that you want to draw your reply's attention to, thus giving your post as a whole a better sense of context. As I have done in this example.

[Maestro]

I disagree. Changing the format of those three words to bold you makes it appear as if I had posted them in bold. Doing this is still bad netiquette and in my book it is wrong. Letting this seemingly innocuous alteration in a quote pass would lead to other, worse situations like changing the color or font of part of the quoted text or quoting a long post and highlighting the two or three lines relevant to the reply. You see the latter a lot in Thailand News Clippings, which is one of the reason while I hardly ever read that forum.

--

Maestro

[britmaveric]

Depends if its done in good humour, ie a word change or two then so be it. If its smth of a serious nature I agree its prob not a good idea simply because posts move so fast that the original will prob be replaced by the modified.

[Mossfinn]

prob be replaced by the modified.

I think that is the problem, if posts then get copied later and the accentuated parts are included, readers may feel that has come from the original poster, giving a wholly different aspect to the post and hence a distorted view of that particular poster.

It is unusual for me to disagree with Dan, but on this occasion I do.

Moss

I bet Dan go's and finds a post that I have done this before

[dantilley]

Hmm, see what you mean - best leave things as they are then I guess, with the chain of quotes that could be possible, it could happen that the wrong impression & context is given.

Must be said though, to go back to the OP which was specifically about maliciously changing a quote from someone, why would anyone bother to do that? I mean the original, unmodified version would still be there anyway...?