Topic Summary: My first impressions of a microblogging post about misquoting.
Goal: I want to have experience engaging with a post.
CF relevance: Might be relevant to replying to posts on CF
Do you want unbounded criticism? (A criticism is a reason that an idea decisively fails at a goal. Criticism can be about anything relevant to goal success, including methods, meta, context or tangents. If you think a line of discussion isn’t worth focusing attention on, that is a disagreement with the person who posted it, which can be discussed.) I don’t know
It took me a third reading to get that changing an automated quote is what’s being talked about and how it’s not a good thing.
I forgot what my first reading was, but my second reading was that I thought it talked about imagining how bad it would be if the machine was unreliable for quoting text and how that’s like the same as someone quoting something manually.
It wouldn’t feel right to me to just agree and be like “yeah, that’s so wrong.” What I’m thinking is so bad is that it would be hard to tell if a quote is a quote or if it’s someone changing it. There would be two versions of the quote, and it would be like rewriting history.
I’m thinking it would look intentional because it would seem the person changing the quoted words did it on purpose.
I don’t know why it would look easily avoidable. I’m thinking because changing quoted words sounds so wrong that not much guidance is needed to know to not do it.
I notice it’s kind of hard to engage with a post cuz there’s a lot of little things going on when reading something. Like it’s easy to mess up and misinterpret something.
Yeah, that makes more sense. It’s a little hard to explain, but if I don’t want to do something then I don’t do it. It’s easy to not do things I don’t want to do.
I was thinking like what if someone typed in the quote accidentally or something got replaced through find and replace, but I don’t think the quote would be changed as much compared to it being done intentionally.