G'day Ray,
jayjg wrote:
On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
If one draws from a Star Trek Encyclopedia, comparing what is said there with the original source is still important. How else are you going to know whether the Encyclopedia information is accurate?
"Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly." WP:NOR
I see. So you believe that slavish adherence to the ravings of policy wonks is more important than accuracy. By your analysis above, if the material in a Star Trek Encyclopedia is just plain dead fucking wrong we would not be allowed to point that out because you consider it to be original research. When it gets that far it strikes me as though the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
I can confirm that non-canon but official publications have been known to get things wrong from time-to-time. It's been a while since I hung out on the geekier side of USENET and listened to more financially well-off (i.e. able to afford such publications and all the eps on video etc.) Trekkies whinge, but I'm sure there's plenty of examples out there (maybe Trekkies on this list who can call up a few examples of their own?)
Also, I'm not too sure how a Paramount-commissioned book becomes a "secondary source". When it describes stuff that doesn't actually appear in the episodes --- the standard non-canon starship specs, explanations for plot holes, etc. --- it's not a secondary source, as such, is it? It's a primary source. And when it describes stuff that's already appeared in the episodes, how is it more a secondary source than another episode?
Let's say Captain Picard is captured by the Borg and forced to become their Official Spokesdroid to the Federation (far-fetched, I know, but it could happen). We'll call that episode "BOBW1". In a later episode, let's call it "BOBW2", Deanna Troi mentions that the Spokesdroid "sounds kinda stressed; probably that's Picard's mind suffering under the transformation the Borg subjected him to in BOBW1". A year later, the "/Star Trek: The Next Generation/ Yearbook" is released, and it describes, going into a LOT of non-canon detail, exactly what happened to Picard.
Let's play "spot the source-related buzzword". Now, BOBW1 is a primary source, right? So basing an article on sitting down in front of the telly with some popcorns and a few mates who happen to love MST3k counts as "original research". However, reading through the Yearbook is *not* original research, since that's a "secondary source". Now, at what point does the Yearbook stop being a primary and become a secondary source? Is it the point where it starts regurgitating information already available by simply watching the episodes? If so, why is BOBW2 not a secondary source? What does this mean for programmes like /Babylon 5/, which (mostly) eschew standalone episodes?
I seriously question the notion that using material from the original movie or book is original research.
I don't see how you possibly could question it; it's clear as day (see above). Where have the screencaps in question been published?
It's clear as day that they were published when the movie was released.
Not clear as day *as such*. A common misconception, and one that causes many copyright issues, is that screencaps are completely separate from the films from which they were taken. How often do we see film screencaps uploaded to Wikipedia with the uploader feeling justified in saying "self-made work, I release it under CC-BY-SA" because he went to all the trouble of pressing PrtScr on his keyboard?
In such an environment, I wouldn't be getting too snarky at someone who got the idea that screencaps had to be separately published before we could refer to them. We're so oriented towards text and still pictures, it's hard to remember that screen caps are just us taking part of an existing, published and copyrighted film (much like copying and pasting text from a book, or cropping a photograph). It's a prefectly natural mistake.
The original research was done by the author of the book.
That's right, and he's allowed to. Scientists, researchers, authors, newspaper reporters - they all do original research. We don't, we use the material the have published in reliable sources instead.
Then I'm glad that you agree that since the author of the Star Trek novel or movie script did the original research our use of that material is not original research.
Err, not sure I'd go that far. My approach, which will surely have certain list members (if anyone bothers to scroll down this far) groaning and clutching at their foreheads, is: fuck policy. Or, to put it another way, "adopt a purposive and commonsense-oriented approach designed to increase flexibility and allow in-depth tailoring of resources towards specific project needs" (but I prefer "fuck policy", because it's shorter).
The original research policy can be summarised as: "don't make shit up". Since a small but significant proportion of the editors who fall afoul of this policy don't tend to think of their activities as "making shit up"[0], we had to craft a new stick with a nail in it (sorry, "policy") and write "WP:NOR" on the side[1]. NOR exists to deal with physics crackpots and the like; however, in our enthusiasm to follow policy, however poorly-written, to the letter, we trip over ourselves to explain that articles on TV programmes must be deleted, Jimbo Wales can't advertise his own birthday, diagrams must be copied from textbooks, and high-quality GFDL pictures from amateur photographer Wikipedians cannot be accepted.
I haven't read the /Star Trek/ uniforms article, but I can see several ways such an article could be written in a way that *isn't* in contravention of the spirit of the principle whilst still falling afoul of the letter of the policy. And in such cases, frankly: fuck policy.
[0] Who can forget the LaRouchite's failed (but entertaining, in a teeth-grinding sort of way) attempts to argue that Chip Berlet's contributions were "original research" because he's also an investigative journalist (or something of that kidney)?
[1] A similar procedure with "don't be a dick" led to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.