On 3/20/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
In a recent posting, Jimbo stated that anything that draws from primary sources is OR. The section is question was drawn in part from primary sources (San Diego courts case detail, a Superior court judgement). In reference to this, Jimbo said:
...
Jimbo is making the assertion that using primary source documents, like legal rulings, is ALSO original research, despite the fact that common practice is Wikipedia goes the opposite way. By extension, everything that cites original sources is OR, right?
If we're hearing "draws" as "cites," then this is an epic change and not for the better. If "draws" is "I cite X, and claim it says Y," then it doesn't appear to be a change in anything. I can't cite a primary source and then make any determination on it (draw anything from it) - I can merely say what it says.
Some clarity might help.
-Jeff
Oops, sorry, forgot the links (too busy being pissed off for being called a POV-pusher that is holding Wikipedia hostage; second link)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Michael_Langan&dif... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristopher_Michael_Langan&...