I was referring to the difference in value between a collection of references and a summary of the content of those references (as opposed to a mere collection of representative quotes).
Gotcha, so to be clear, you’re saying: it would be better for the current post to have the relevant quotes from the references, but it would be even better to have summaries of the explanations?
(I tend to think this is a topic where summaries are especially likely to lose some important nuance, but not confident.)
Gotcha, so to be clear, you’re saying: it would be better for the current post to have the relevant quotes from the references, but it would be even better to have summaries of the explanations?
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
(I tend to think this is a topic where summaries are especially likely to lose some important nuance, but not confident.)
I defer to you, since I am not familiar with this topic. My above assessment was “on priors”.
I was referring to the difference in value between a collection of references and a summary of the content of those references (as opposed to a mere collection of representative quotes).
Gotcha, so to be clear, you’re saying: it would be better for the current post to have the relevant quotes from the references, but it would be even better to have summaries of the explanations?
(I tend to think this is a topic where summaries are especially likely to lose some important nuance, but not confident.)
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
I defer to you, since I am not familiar with this topic. My above assessment was “on priors”.