Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Quoting out of context (view source)
Revision as of 12:09, April 22, 2007
, 12:09, April 22, 2007→A request to editors: Darwin example not out of context
:::"Quote mining", regardless of whether you or I are correct on its meaning, is a pejorative term, indicating unscrupulousness on the part of the perpetrator. Using a quote out of context is a fact of life, and, in my opinion, unintentional in the vast majority of cases. If the article is not written as though taking a quote out of context is something done deliberately, then I don't see that there should be a problem. And the example I provided is one that shows that even careful quoters can get it wrong occasionally. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:::"Quote mining", regardless of whether you or I are correct on its meaning, is a pejorative term, indicating unscrupulousness on the part of the perpetrator. Using a quote out of context is a fact of life, and, in my opinion, unintentional in the vast majority of cases. If the article is not written as though taking a quote out of context is something done deliberately, then I don't see that there should be a problem. And the example I provided is one that shows that even careful quoters can get it wrong occasionally. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
I just went and read the article Philip cited, but I don't see how the Darwin quote is "out of context":
:Charles Darwin himself realized that it seemed incredible that evolutionary processes had to explain human vision. He said:
::'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'1
:Yet, later on in the same chapter of his book, he explained how he believed it evolved anyway and that the ‘absurdity’ was illusory. Had Darwin had the knowledge about the eye and its associated systems that man has today (which is a great deal more than what it was in his time), he may have given up his naturalistic theory on the origin of living things. [ibid]
According to the cited article, Darwin (1) said "natural selection ... '''seems''' ... absurd" but (2) said that the absurdity '''was illusory'''.
This seems parallel to:
#Critics say that Conserapedia's articles are all trash and no fact, yet
#A survey conducted by CP supporter Ed Poor and two CP critics confirmed that 11 out of 30 article (37%) are "good" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:09, 22 April 2007 (EDT)