On 20/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
Not all articles use something as a source for
itself (e.g., using an
episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of
Friends).
We never copy an account word-for-word. Even published synopses have
to be summarised by our editors. I cannot see the fundamental
difference between summarising an episode and summarising a summary of
an episode. This must be original research by your standard too?
It's important to remember that the original purpose of the no original
research rule was to thwart screwball scientific theories. These
episodes are fictitious to start with so summarizing them directly or
from another summary shouldn't matter. It's a misapplication of the
idea of no original research. If something in the only available
summary is dead wrong are you still going to accept the validity of the
summary over the real episode?
Ec