On 10/17/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Earle Martin wrote:
On 17/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I'd fail you in any of my English classes for being a slave to authorial intent.
It is a testament to my having given up English classes that I don't even understand what that means... :)
Doesn't Amy Tan go around telling people they've got it wrong about her books for the sheer pleasure of fucking around with the nitwits who are slaves to authorial intent?
(Which is not to say "Hey, you know what we need, more OR" so much as
"For the love of GOD will people stop assuming they instinctively know how/what to cite outside of their field?")
Indeed.
For stuff like this where one show is making a reference or homage to another, I'd say cite the thing it's making an homage to and count it as "original research" only if after watching the two side-by-side the reference isn't blatantly obvious. There will no doubt be borderline cases where debate can be had, but that's life on Wikipedia and shouldn't be feared.
Bingo!