In a message dated 4/7/2008 11:49:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
Which I'm not advocating. I'm saying that we need to understand that the relationship between a summary and a source is not 1:1, and that any summary is going to introduce material that is not from sources. Such information cannot simply be cut out of the process - it needs to be carefully engaged with. Sources are vital, but we cannot pretend that an article is simply a natural and obvious extension of its sources.>>
----------------- Sure, provided that the additional information is simple infererence, observation, deduction, with which a person "skilled in the art" would in general agree. We already cover this.
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
From: WJhonson@aol.com> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:51:55 -0400> To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] While we're at it, NOR line-by-line> > > In a message dated 4/7/2008 11:49:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > snowspinner@gmail.com writes:> > Which I'm not advocating. I'm saying that we need to understand that > the relationship between a summary and a source is not 1:1, and that > any summary is going to introduce material that is not from sources. > Such information cannot simply be cut out of the process - it needs to > be carefully engaged with. Sources are vital, but we cannot pretend > that an article is simply a natural and obvious extension of its > sources.>>> > > -----------------> Sure, provided that the additional information is simple infererence, > observation, deduction, with which a person "skilled in the art" would in general > agree. We already cover this.> > > > **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. > (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)%... _______________________________________________> WikiEN-l mailing list> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ �Ѵ������ٻ��ء���ҡ�Թ����ſ���ͧ�س��������� Photo Gallery http://www.get.live.com/wl/all
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:51 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/7/2008 11:49:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
Which I'm not advocating. I'm saying that we need to understand that the relationship between a summary and a source is not 1:1, and that any summary is going to introduce material that is not from sources. Such information cannot simply be cut out of the process - it needs to be carefully engaged with. Sources are vital, but we cannot pretend that an article is simply a natural and obvious extension of its sources.>>
Sure, provided that the additional information is simple infererence, observation, deduction, with which a person "skilled in the art" would in general agree. We already cover this.
Actually, and this is my complaint, we currently demand that a person *unskilled* in the art be able to do it.
-Phil