[WikiEN-l] fancruft

[Bkonrad]

> On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> This is somewhat confusing to me, because it seems so obvious to me
> that watching a TV show and then writing about it is original
> research.  Anyway, here's what I found about what is a primary source:
>
> "The distinction between types of sources can get tricky, because a
> secondary source may also be a primary source. Garry Wills' book about
> Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, for example, can looked at as both a
> secondary and a primary source. The distinction may depend on how you
> are using the source and the nature of your research. If you are
> researching Abraham Lincoln, the book would be a secondary source
> because WIlls is offering his opinions about Lincoln and the
> Gettysburg Address. If your assignment is to write a book review of
> Lincoln at  Gettysburg, the book becomes a primary source, because you
> are commenting, evaluating, and discussing Garry Wills' ideas."
>
> It seems to me, based on this paragraph, that using "Episode 5 of
> Season 3 of Friends" in an article about that episode, would be the
> *creation* of a primary source.

No. Here's the analogy broken out from quote you provide:

Use of Wills' book: researching Abraham Lincoln
Primary source: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
Secondary source: Wills' book "Lincoln at Gettysburg"

Use of Wills' book: book review of Lincoln at  Gettysburg
Primary source: Wills' book "Lincoln at Gettysburg"
Secondary source: N/A

If you are writing about Shakespeare, the primary source is the text of 
Shakespeare's work. If you are writing about an episode of Friends, the 
primary source is the episode itself.

Now all of this is really somewhat distinct from whether something is 
original research (at least in the context of what that means on Wikipedia). 
If you are writing a simply plot summary, there is not much OR involved--as 
others have pointed out, every article on Wikipedia involves selecting which 
details to include and which to omit. There may be disagreement about which 
details are significant, but to be a simple plot summary, the details must 
be explicitly present (verifiable) in the primary source.

Where things cross the line into OR is when the summary starts to put 
forward some sort of analytical synthesis--such as attempting to explain WHY 
a character may have taken a certain action or comparing the plot to that of 
some other work. OR occurs when one starts to advance ideas that are not 
explicitly present in the source material, but are based on inference or 
synthesis or other techniques.

Bkonrad