Oldak Quill wrote:
On 20/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@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