On 7/20/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 21/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
No, it isn't. I'm sorry you can't
see that.
Perhaps you could humour me and explain how they are different?
I suspect Anthony might be of the opinion that an encyclopedia should
only be a tertiary source, summarising the judgment of secondary
sources.
(am I right?)
I think summarizing something directly (e.g. using a Friends episode
as a source for facts about itself) is, by its very definition,
original research. The Friends episode isn't even a primary source in
this case - the Friends episode is the subject, and the summary would
be the primary source.
There are a number of reasons to do this. One is that it helps lessen
the amount of "fancruft".
Anthony