[WikiEN-l] fancruft

[Anthony]

On 7/20/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 21/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > No, it isn't.  I'm sorry you can't see that.
> >
> > Perhaps you could humour me and explain how they are different?
>
> I suspect Anthony might be of the opinion that an encyclopedia should
> only be a tertiary source, summarising the judgment of secondary
> sources.
>
> (am I right?)
>
I think summarizing something directly (e.g. using a Friends episode
as a source for facts about itself) is, by its very definition,
original research.  The Friends episode isn't even a primary source in
this case - the Friends episode is the subject, and the summary would
be the primary source.

There are a number of reasons to do this.  One is that it helps lessen
the amount of "fancruft".

Anthony