-----Original Message-----
From: Oldak Quill [mailto:oldakquill@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 09:22 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
On 09/04/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill
<oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> You are describing original research. Putting together information you
have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography. But it
is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person described,
except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you yourself
have breathed life into.
Compiling an article from multiple sources is not original research.
I don't see why compiling an article from multiple sources would be original
research. It's actually good to do it. It means you've verified your info
from more than one source. Original research is when you interpret
information and draw conclusion from it, which I didn't do.
Yes, compiling an article from multiple sources is fundamental to
article writing. Compiling from a single source tends to be
plagiarism.
If we were to adopt Fred's definition of "original research", we'd
have to delete every article on Wikipedia that isn't plagiarised or
made up.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)
My definition of original research was adopted some time ago.
Plagiarism is not using information from a source, but using it and not crediting it. We
do have a great deal of plagiarism due to sources not being adequately credited. Copying
another work without permission is violation of copyright. Copying without crediting
amounts to both violation of copyright and plagiarism. Using the facts in a published
biography is acceptable so long as the source is credited, provided significant parts of
the original work are not copied.