([i]This is my opinion, and it’s as much an explanation of how I use the
[quote]
function, as it is a expression of subjective fact of the best way to do things. And it is totally subjective; I’m in the ‘proper language is whatever works’ camp, so do you. And it’s certainly not a declaration of policy or anything like that, I haven’t run this past any other member of staff, and I’m not quite that petty.
And besides: good sense doesn’t need the imprimatur of the state. What follows is just good sense.[/i])
The best way to use
[quote]
s is not to quote an entire post and put each sentence in its own quote box and respond line by line. Writing is rarely so dense that each sentence requires a separate response. The point of a text comes out across the whole post, so separating effectively guarantees missing the broader point.
Moreover, it encourages cheap shots. Writing about every sentence is posturing, trying to brute-force the discussion by refuting every word. One-liners just aren’t a good way to express a complex point. Insults, on the other hand, are really, really simple. When one structures a response to require simple point after simple point, odds are greatly increased that one will reach for an insult to fill the quota, and greatly decreased that anything deep or interesting will be said.
Nor is the best way to use quotes to quote an entire post and then respond to the whole thing underneath. That’s totally unnecessary: the post is in the thread, copying it is redundant. Even if you want to point to a post much earlier in the the thread, a link is better; a giant text box breaks up the flow. If you’re actually responding to the entire post as a complete work, link to it. If instead you’re responding to certain ideas expressed in the post, continue reading…
The best way to use quotes is to quote specific, small portions of a post as representative of the larger idea they are used to express. They should say, “In the part where you were manipulating ideas that looked like this, …” These quotes should be a few sentences, as short as possible to capture the idea you’ll actually be addressing in the next paragraph (because, it should go without saying, you should be writing in paragraphs). These quotes function as headers for the sections of your response, to break it up into various ideas or points being discussed.
But, again, you aren’t picking these quotes apart word for word. They refer to the idea, but they need not be the entirety of what the person quoted said about the idea. If someone says “It is true that XYZ. We know this because 1) … , 2) … , 3)… .”, it is sufficient to quote “It is true that XYZ”, or even “[…] XYZ”. This makes clear the idea to which you are referring. And since the other person has helpfully labeled her arguments 1, 2, and 3, you needn’t quote them to refer to them.
This will of course be context-dependent: perhaps you want to go into depth about point 2, in which case you might be best served using an illustrative quote to mark a section where you respond to that point at length. But always respond not only to the quoted language, but to the argument to which it relates. The quoted language it only a pointer to a greater context.
Another good use is as text elements. When in a more formal work you would use a block quote, a quote box serves nicely. These kinds of quotes will be best when they quote an outside source. “As Wittgenstein had observed, [block quote]”. Such a use does not stand in for actually writing a post, just as one cannot turn in Philosophical Investigations in place of a paper on the philosophy of language. But, again, where a block quote would be useful, so too can a quote be well-used here.
This can also be useful if an earlier post, especially someone else’s earlier post, had already addressed a point being made. But take care in this latter case: it is best to presume good faith, and that entails that if a person does not see their point as in conflict with what was said before, simply repeating it will not advance the discussion. At the very least, such a use of a quote block should be followed with some elaboration of the point, to explain just why what was said earlier is responsive to or contradictory with what has been said more recently.
These two uses of the quote function, as representative of an idea and as a text element, are that function’s best uses. Indeed, in most cases I would consider these uses as the exhaustive set of good and valuable uses of the quote function. There may be rare occasions where e.g. quoting to pick apart each word is necessary (for example, in analyzing a formal proof), but these are the exception. As a rule, other uses will make your posts look sloppy and poorly thought out, and are likely to confuse and mislead what might otherwise be a good discussion.
([i]To preempt what I expect will be at least one form of response: intentionally misusing the quote function in response to this post would be boring, unless such misuse demonstrates another valuable way to use quotes.
Less boring would be pointing to what I’m sure are numerous posts where I’ve violated these rules, but the effort it would take to find them will be enough to dissuade all but the most diligent of trolls.[/i])