[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Surreptitiousness
<surreptitious.wikipedian at googlemail.com> wrote:
> FT2 wrote:
>> The issue for fiction can be summed up within with one question, almost.
>> Here is a nice simple book. Obviously any /analysis/ will be from good
>> quality sources. But what kind of sourcing is appropriate to its plot
>> summary? Many well-read books don't have plot summaries in reliable sources,
>> and yet "anyone reading the book can see what its basic plot is", and we
>> have hundreds of editors to reach consensus on what it says.
>>
>> (Key issue: any book is a primary source on its own contents.)
>>
> You've misread me.  The key question is, why should we summarise this
> plot. That's what's causing the problems with fiction on Wikipedia at
> the minute. Although having said that, the drama does seem to have died
> off a bit lately. Which kind of suggests a consensus of sorts exists.

I think plot summaries are OK, as long as there is some real-world
context and analysis. Just a description of what the book is about is
not enough. Links to reviews and criticism is a must, in my view. Some
examples would help here, from stubs, to "only" plot summary (more
like a directory of books), to "mixtures" to "featured articles about
books" (we have a few of those).

Carcharoth