rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/10/90)
B.S Oplinger writes (in a msg which he's allowing me to quote): > >I would vote against r.a.c simply on the grounds that you >explicitly disallow the moderator from correcting simple and >obvious spelling errors. I agree that sending the article back to >the author to correct spelling is foolish, but I feel that >posting it as is is also just as foolish. I allowed for the case of a posting being returned because it was likely to be misunderstood. If it *isn't* likely to be misunderstood, then why should it be tampered with at all? I believe (as do others) that articles should represent EXACTLY what the author submitted. As Karen Valentino put it: "the author has final say over what appears under his/her name, not the editor". Since I think everyone agrees that we shouldn't be bothered with the whole return/correct/review cycle for every little mistake (the kinds of mistakes which I'm sure you can find in this article), that suggests to me that these errors should be left as is. >I just do not believe that serious discussion can follow an >article rife with spelling errors. A number of the moderated >groups I follow, allow the moderator to correct spelling >mistakes. Since I do not have particlularly good spelling (or >grammer :-] ), I appreciate that. I would be willing to modify the charter so that editorial revision by the moderator can be explicitly allowed by the submitter. But other submitters should have the right to have their articles left exactly as is; further, they should not have their articles returned for minor errors. I don't see how minor spelling errors make it impossible to carry on serious discussion. Are your points any less serious because you wrote "grammer" instead of "grammar", or because you put a comma after "follow"? I don't understand why you should think this. Finally, if you support the idea of the group, doesn't it seem excessive to vote against it on the basis of this single point? Everyone compromises some in group creation since a group proposal represents the needs of a community rather than an individual. Revised paragraph from the charter: -- Is the article likely to be correctly understood? If the moderator determines that an article is likely to be misunderstood, it will be returned to the author for clarification. The moderator will not alter an article in any way unless the author indicates that this is acceptable. The moderator will not reject an article solely on the basis of minor spelling or grammatical errors. rs