On 3/21/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's hard to imagine a quotation from anywhere that isn't cherry-picked. Reviewing Darwin's work to differentiate between what was used in secondary literature, and what is an original usage is itself as much original research as the result. Either Darwin is a quotable author or he isn't; there's no point to creating a large amount of weasel room that would allow us to opt out when what he says does not conform to one's individual point of view.
Well it depends on the claims, of course. It is pretty easy for someone familiar with the secondary literature to spot Darwin quoted out of context or a misrepresentation of Darwin's views (according secondary literature, of course). The question really only becomes absolutely pressing when people try to press controversial or unorthodox opinions through on the basis of appeals to primary source. It is an unfortunate reality that OR is really only visible when there is something to contrast it with and someone available to do the constrasting.
The nature of copyright makes Wikipedia editors participate in OS (Original Synthesis)every time they write something up, and certainly some OR slips in there unconsciously, no matter who is writing the article.
FF