Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that regard.
No one, but no one, is claiming that synopsises of TV shows are fancruft.
Anthony apparently does. Here's what he wrote in the email this was a response to:
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".
I was mainly disagreeing with the notion that the episode itself isn't an acceptable source for a description of the episode, but this other notion about the summary being fancruft seems implied as well.