SonOfYoungwood(a)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/24/2006 1:52:48 AM Central Standard Time, scott(a)mu.org
writes:
I think the point is that we are not suppose to be writing "literary
criticism", or at least not *originating* it. That would be OR! FOr
the parts of the articles that consist of literary criticism we are
suppose to be summarizing not creating.
However, an article on a fictional work is not a literary critique,
it has some of that in it. However in this case it is an encyclopedia
article and depending on the work may include a lot more, some of which
are facts that can (only?) be verified from the original work.
Though I think your point still stands that summarizing the critiques
that are out there would be much more difficult for someone totally
unfamiliar with the original work.
Dalf
I see no issue in citing scripts for summarizing a series of facts for a
plot synopsis in an RPG (such as, "After Galbadia invaded Dollet, the parliament
dispatched a request for aid [1]."). Heck, in a situation where one has to
show a character changing over time, citing the RPG game script at multiple
points may be considered 'common sense synthesis' and not OR. I really think
it's a case by case basis, and must ask: how far out of context does the
Wikipedia synopsis take the original source? Moreover, I feel that finding a
reliable summary or two may help round out the sources and give the Wikipedia
synopsis more "freedom". A synopsis should list the events.
| Tyler | Zorin Deckiller |
I think that is what I said. Facts that are indisputable from the
script "so and so was present at such and such an event" are ok.
Literary criticism "the color red was used throughout the film to
symbolize death and life" is not. Basically anything that someone else
could disagree with after reading the work or watching the work has to
be sourced from outside the work, even if their disagreement is not 100%
reasonable.
SKL