[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"Andrew Gray" wrote

> The problem is, all that the source contains is (a translation of?)
> the original text; I've recast it in a more modern style and converted
> from long and tedious legalese to a fairly comprehensible precis, but
> I've done it solely working from the original and not from any
> secondary synopsis of the Act.
> 
> Is this original research? If not, why not - where does "rewriting"
> end and "interpreting" begin? Does it depend on the complexity of the
> source document?

A fair summary is clearly not any kind of original research. Collation of material is not in itself original research. These are the fundamental processes of encyclopedia production, rather.
 
> I think I'm in the clear - but I'm curious to know where we would draw
> a line on this sort of thing.

Basically the material should not carry any degree of spin; spin and interpretation should be added only by citation of some authority. But it seems often to happen that the apparent OR is a wording difficulty: i.e. it is not a clear-cut case of original research having happened, but rather than the conclusion is overstated. Saying 'OR' in such a case is somewhat lazy shorthand, I think, for 'UR', or unencyclopedic rhetoric. Really tendentious material, crank or conspiracy theory stuff, has a different profile; and cannot possibly be salvaged by toning down how it is phrased.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information