On 7/20/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@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