[WikiEN-l] fancruft

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthony wrote:

>On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>  
>
>>Steve Bennett wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at 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.
>>    
>>
>*Some* synopses of TV shows are what I think Jimbo is referring to
>when he uses the term "fancruft".  *Some* aren't.  One (reasonable, in
>my opinion) way to draw the line is whether or not another respectable
>source has talked about the episode.
>
If we waited for these books to be published we would never be up to 
date.  At best a book of the episodes will be published at the end of 
the season.  One important question is what does the reader want.  He 
may be sitting with a group of friends talking about a favorite TV 
programme, and as a result want to settle an argument about some 
particular episode.  He's not looking for an academic thesis about the 
show; he just wants to check out some basic facts.  He doesn't give a 
tinker's dam about where WE got the information from the episode itself 
or a book about it.  If he feels that our information is accurate he's 
happy.

>This goes for Shakespeare as well as for Sopranos (*).  Both can be
>the subject of perfectly acceptable scholarly research.  But
>Wikipedians shouldn't be the ones doing the research, Wikipedians
>should be making an article which organizes the research done by
>others.
>
>(*) I doubt you'd find a published work of Shakespeare that *hasn't*
>been examined by multiple other sources, though.
>
That's because they've had 400 years to do it.

Ec