>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.
Um, you might not be aware of just how many crackpots there are that
insist that the facts printed in books are wrong.