[WikiEN-l] fancruft

[Ray Saintonge]

Oldak Quill wrote:

>On 20/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>Not all articles use something as a source for itself (e.g., using an
>>episode of Friends as a source on what happened in an episode of
>>Friends).
>>    
>>
>We never copy an account word-for-word. Even published synopses have
>to be summarised by our editors. I cannot see the fundamental
>difference between summarising an episode and summarising a summary of
>an episode. This must be original research by your standard too?
>
It's important to remember that the original purpose of the no original 
research rule was to thwart screwball scientific theories.  These 
episodes are fictitious to start with so summarizing them directly or 
from another summary shouldn't matter.  It's a misapplication of the 
idea of no original research.  If something in the only available 
summary is dead wrong are you still going to accept the validity of the 
summary over the real episode?

Ec