In a message dated 12/18/2008 1:41:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, mark@formonelane.net writes:
Phil has hinted at it, but the primary reason we should be able to summarise and rephrase the words of humanities experts is that if we don't, our articles won't make any gosh-darned sense ...>>
-------------------- You *can* summarize and rephrase the words of humanities experts. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether you can, as an expert editor, create new synthesis and analysis, never before published.
I suggested quoting, and paraphrasing, would make the article more readable. I never suggested that it be an article of quotes.
Surely we can figure out how to summarize Derida, or anyone else, without injecting too much of our own overt positioning into the summary.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
Surely we can figure out how to summarize Derida, or anyone else, without injecting too much of our own overt positioning into the summary.
You start right here, Will...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrida
Crack open one of his books. Click the "edit this page" button up top. And away you go! :-)
Carcharoth
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:52 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Surely we can figure out how to summarize Derida, or anyone else, without injecting too much of our own overt positioning into the summary.
I don't think that's the problem, Will. I think most anyone who would want to summarize Derrida on Wikipedia can do that.
The problem is that WP:NOR says explicitly that they're not allowed to. It says, and I quote,
"a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."
Now, perhaps you don't think that explicitly rules out Derrida. But on the face of it, it does. And in plenty of people's interpretations, it does.
I mean, I agree with you on what you say should be allowed. The problem is that Wikipedia policy does not agree with us.
-Phil
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:12:26AM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote:
"a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."
The way I have always read that par of NOR, books ''about Derrida'' are secondary sources, which do not have this "without specialist knowledge" proviso. It's only if you want to write your article directly from Derrida's work that the primary sources issue comes into play.
- Carl