[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[Ray Saintonge]

Carcharoth wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Surreptitiousness 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).
Why shouldn't a plot summary or book description be enough?  It's a 
fundamental building block for any article.  While it would be nice to 
have reviews and criticisms a simple tag that we would like these added 
should suffice to alert someone else to add them.  The people who write 
a good summary are often not the same people who condense reviews and 
criticisms well.

Ec