Posted by Rick on March 13, 1999 at 22:11:37 {MWSZV6.08fSjY}:
One possible reason for post removal is excessive quoting of material. Example: Shaun posted some excellent quotes but they totalled 19K in posting size, and were many. (See Shaun's deleted post for example.)
Excessive quoting could cause legal problems for our site and its ISP. I believe if not mistaken the FAQ deals with this, but even if not, the copyright issue is there.
Copyright allows for "fair use" of quoted material. One good method of determining fair use of multiple quotes is to ask if the commentary on quotes in your own words (or summation of quoted materials) equals or exceeds the size of quoted material (i.e., if you quote 100 words is your commentary of that quote an additional 100 words or more?).
If you quote one single source, i.e., 100 words from the WT and then reply with significantly less than 100 words -- such as 20 words or less, which is 20% of the quoted material -- then the question is if you are violating copyright laws. The test is to ask if your comment raises an issue and the quoted material supports that issue?
Multiple quotes present a larger problem, because they take up lots of space (and many "pages" or scroll-downs when you hit the PgDn button to page throuh post). Take Shaun's post. Although I thought it was a good post and appreciate his effort, it is not the most efficient use of bandwidth to get across a point. If hundreds of posters duplicated Shaun's style then there would be tens of megabytes of material in postings that generate as much additional bandwdith.
Shaun's deleted post was 19K and consisted primarily of quotes. That means in order for him to provide enough commentary to match the size of his quotes, he would have to write an additional 19K of his own commentary. The paradox is the total bytes would be 38K+, whereas the post size limit in the fpp is 30K.
I propose a solution:
I propose that we FOCUS the discussion in a posting to a single quote with sufficient commentary (greater than 20% of quote size or enough commentary to sufficiently raise an issue). When multiple quotes are involved, provide the quotations for each quote only (name of publication, date, author if available, page number). Stick to quoting the actual text from one quote per posting.
The collective bandwidth of over 3000 postings per week is staggering, and we each need to develop the talent for communicating information as economically and efficiently as possible. A series of several posts might be needed, each with only a few posts. Then we could use links to tie all the posts together, if necessary, such as showing wide-scale contradictions in the Society's literature over a period of time. If multiple quotes are necessary to show a pattern of contradiction over a period of time, then explain to the reader at the beginning of post why you are quoting multiple materials. Quote only the amount of material as necessary, but don't quote such a small amount that it rips the meaning out context. The use of copyright material is a balancing act between not quoting too much, or too little. In a situation where you must quote too much to avoid ripping out the context, then it's better to describe the material in your own words and ask the reader to verify it in a citation of material (name of material, publisher, date, page numbers, etc., as in a standard citation).
I ask the moderators to try extra diligently to not delete material that is relevant to H2O on technicalities, but in this case politely warn the person and suggest improvements. (This is only where the post is extremely relevant but the poster inadvertently violated the FPP on a "technicality.") Then if they ignore your advice proceed to act accordingly.
Each moderator has discretion and I'm relying on their Christian maturity and dedication to the truth in enforcement. I guess enforcement is sort of like the dilemma traffic officers face on the roads. They try to avoid pulling people over for exceeding the speed limit by one mile per hour, or even a few, instead focusing their limited time on first pulling over the worst offenders. Then they focus on those driving less wrecklessly but still endangering themselves and others by exceeding the speed limit or violating other traffic laws. This is where each moderator has a huge responsibility that will help shape the future of H2O and possibly of the organization looking on through their computer monitors.
Rick