This post does three things simultaneously, and I think those things are all at odds with one another:
Summarizes Duncan Sabien’s post.
Provides commentary on the post.
Edits the post.
First, what is a summary and what are its goals? A summary should be a condensed and context-less version of the original that is shorter to read while still getting the main points across. A reader coming into a summary is therefore not expected to have any knowledge of the reference material. That reader shouldn’t expect the level of detail that the source material has, and so it’s fine if the summary has some visible wrinkles that would be smoothed over with more words. IMO a summary should only sparingly quote the source material, but this might just be a stylistic preference. A summary should never contradict the source material.
If it’s intended to be an edit of the original, but made more brief, then I dislike that you made what I see as substantive changes. You should retain original formatting (e.g. italics) and phrasing when possible if you are simply deleting what you see as nonessential words to shorten the post. Some rephrasing may be necessary if you delete something that is referenced elsewhere, or to avoid grammatical errors.
The opening two sentences of your post muddy these three types of writing:
This is a linkable resource intended to be fairly straightforward, for a culture of clear thinking, clear communication, and collaborative truth-seeking.
This is what an edit would look like; it is speaking as though it is the original and not a summary. If you were intending to summarize the original post then a you could write something like “This is a summary of [post] intended to be a linkable resource for a culture of clear thinking, clear communication, and collaborative truth-seeking.”
You continue:
[removed quote from that one lady.]
This is commentary. A summary shouldn’t include this line because it is trying to minimize the amount of text and there’s no expectation that a summary post would use the same formatting or verbiage of the original. An edit wouldn’t include this either, since it would either change the quote to something else the editor finds more appealing or just skip it entirely. Instead, this is a response to what was contained in the original. The only interpretation that I can think of is that this is you chastising Sabien for including the line in the first place, but perhaps that is a failure of imagination on my part.
I think a genuine summary of Duncan’s post could be useful, but I do not like the commentary/summary/edit trifecta. I cannot tell which parts are written by you and which parts are quoted from the original. I cannot distinguish between your opinion, your summary of Duncan’s opinion, and your response to Duncan’s post. All of these make this post much more difficult to engage with on its own merits, which is ruinous for a summary.
This post does three things simultaneously, and I think those things are all at odds with one another:
Summarizes Duncan Sabien’s post.
Provides commentary on the post.
Edits the post.
First, what is a summary and what are its goals? A summary should be a condensed and context-less version of the original that is shorter to read while still getting the main points across. A reader coming into a summary is therefore not expected to have any knowledge of the reference material. That reader shouldn’t expect the level of detail that the source material has, and so it’s fine if the summary has some visible wrinkles that would be smoothed over with more words. IMO a summary should only sparingly quote the source material, but this might just be a stylistic preference. A summary should never contradict the source material.
If it’s intended to be an edit of the original, but made more brief, then I dislike that you made what I see as substantive changes. You should retain original formatting (e.g. italics) and phrasing when possible if you are simply deleting what you see as nonessential words to shorten the post. Some rephrasing may be necessary if you delete something that is referenced elsewhere, or to avoid grammatical errors.
The opening two sentences of your post muddy these three types of writing:
This is what an edit would look like; it is speaking as though it is the original and not a summary. If you were intending to summarize the original post then a you could write something like “This is a summary of [post] intended to be a linkable resource for a culture of clear thinking, clear communication, and collaborative truth-seeking.”
You continue:
This is commentary. A summary shouldn’t include this line because it is trying to minimize the amount of text and there’s no expectation that a summary post would use the same formatting or verbiage of the original. An edit wouldn’t include this either, since it would either change the quote to something else the editor finds more appealing or just skip it entirely. Instead, this is a response to what was contained in the original. The only interpretation that I can think of is that this is you chastising Sabien for including the line in the first place, but perhaps that is a failure of imagination on my part.
I think a genuine summary of Duncan’s post could be useful, but I do not like the commentary/summary/edit trifecta. I cannot tell which parts are written by you and which parts are quoted from the original. I cannot distinguish between your opinion, your summary of Duncan’s opinion, and your response to Duncan’s post. All of these make this post much more difficult to engage with on its own merits, which is ruinous for a summary.