[WikiEN-l] fancruft

[Michael Hopcroft]

Anthony wrote:
> On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>   
>> On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>     
>>> Anthony wrote:
>>>       
>>>> As I explained in my other post, my comments were much more
>>>> restrictive than that.  If you have to resort to original research in
>>>> order to create a plot synopsis, *that* is what I have a problem with.
>>>>         
>>> The only way I can see needing original research to come up with a plot
>>> synopsis would be to go on set and observe the filming of the show, or
>>> maybe personally interview the scriptwriter or something. Once the
>>> show's been broadcast or put on DVD it's a published primary source.
>>>
>>>       
>> It's a primary source on what?  Not on itself.
>>
>>     
>>> I think we're at the point where we're just repeating ourselves at each
>>> other, but I'm about to leave on vacation so someone else will have to
>>> take over repeating for me here. :)
>>>       
> This is somewhat confusing to me, because it seems so obvious to me
> that watching a TV show and then writing about it is original
> research.  Anyway, here's what I found about what is a primary source:
>
>   
Yet defining it as such creates innumerable practical problems when 
doing articles on television and film.

There is also a logical contraction: you seem to be asking people to 
write articles on movies and TV shows they HAVE NOT SEEN, which of 
course is as much a total absurdity as asking a literary scholar to 
write a thesis on novels and plays he has never himself read, based 
solely on previously-existing external scholarship. The idea is 
unrealistic nearly to the point of psychotic detachment.