One way to violate the very thing I highlighted in my prior post (standards of good attribution) is to quote someone and leave out a part with no indication that you’ve left something out. This is something I never do. When I leave something out I use “[…]” or, if that’s impractical for some reason, I explicitly state that I’m leaving something out, and I encourage the reader to read the original. Often I use both approaches. That’s because it is never my intention to mislead.
The original version of this post included an example of someone failing to do this and misleading the reader. It has since been corrected. Here’s a comment right on that blog that called attention to the problem, and here’s a screen shot of the original post:
See the ellipsis? Me neither. Here, from the quoted post, is what was cut between “… even more deaths.” and “I’d call breathing …”:
Value-based insurance design is a good concept. We have a long way to go in getting it implemented more thoroughly.
The link takes you to an explanation of what value-based insurance design is and why it might be a useful cost-control, not to mention health-enhancing, device. I recommend following the link to learn more about it. You’ll find far more about value-based insurance design at the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design. (Value-based insurance design has nothing to do with increasing taxes, just in case anyone is confused on that point, which is why my post never mentioned taxes.)
By the way, to complete the record, here’s my other response.
UPDATE: In the interest of civility, a few unnecessary sentences at the end have been removed. For pedagogical purposes, I added the bit about what was cut and why it is important.
UPDATE 2: Edited to reflect the fact that Goodman’s post has been corrected. Maybe this is what he meant.
