[WikiEN-l] fancruft

[geni]

On 7/22/06, Michael Hopcroft <michael at mphpress.com> wrote:
> 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.

Really? It would be quite posible for me to write articles on canals
I've never seen nor ever will see (since they are now under a city or
the like).

-- 
geni