On 7/21/06, Bkonrad <bkonrad123(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/21/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
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:
"The distinction between types of sources can get tricky, because a
secondary source may also be a primary source. Garry Wills' book about
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, for example, can looked at as both a
secondary and a primary source. The distinction may depend on how you
are using the source and the nature of your research. If you are
researching Abraham Lincoln, the book would be a secondary source
because WIlls is offering his opinions about Lincoln and the
Gettysburg Address. If your assignment is to write a book review of
Lincoln at Gettysburg, the book becomes a primary source, because you
are commenting, evaluating, and discussing Garry Wills' ideas."
It seems to me, based on this paragraph, that using "Episode 5 of
Season 3 of Friends" in an article about that episode, would be the
*creation* of a primary source.
No. Here's the analogy broken out from quote you provide:
It's not an analogy, it's an example.
Use of Wills' book: researching Abraham Lincoln
Primary source: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
Secondary source: Wills' book "Lincoln at Gettysburg"
Use of Wills' book: book review of Lincoln at Gettysburg
Primary source: Wills' book "Lincoln at Gettysburg"
Secondary source: N/A
If you are writing about Shakespeare, the primary source is the text of
Shakespeare's work. If you are writing about an episode of Friends, the
primary source is the episode itself.
No, if you are writing about Shakespeare, the primary source is the
text of Shakespeare's work. If you are writing about the author of
Friends, the primary source is an episode of Friends. If you're
writing about the play Hamlet, the play itself would not be a primary
source. If you're writing about an episode of Friends, the episode
itself would not be a primary source.
Now all of this is really somewhat distinct from
whether something is
original research (at least in the context of what that means on Wikipedia).
In my opinion it confuses the point. Original research is much more
simply stated as writing from direct observation, as opposed to
writing from someone else's observations.
If writing about an episode of Friends and using that episode isn't
original research, I'd have to ask, what is? What is original
research in the context of writing about a published work, or is there
no such thing as original research in that case?
If you are writing a simply plot summary, there is not
much OR involved--as
others have pointed out, every article on Wikipedia involves selecting which
details to include and which to omit. There may be disagreement about which
details are significant, but to be a simple plot summary, the details must
be explicitly present (verifiable) in the primary source.
I never said that the act of selecting which details to include and
which to omit is original research. It was others who brought that
up.
Where things cross the line into OR is when the
summary starts to put
forward some sort of analytical synthesis--such as attempting to explain WHY
a character may have taken a certain action or comparing the plot to that of
some other work. OR occurs when one starts to advance ideas that are not
explicitly present in the source material, but are based on inference or
synthesis or other techniques.
I agree with this to a large extent. But I think when you write about
a work using only the work itself as a source you necessarily *do* put
forward this sort of synthesis. Otherwise, what is the point of
mentioning the fact?
I guess the exception would be when you just list out facts in random
order and don't make any attempt to make them relevant. And I suppose
you could argue that's what the Trivia section of an article does.
But otherwise, analytical synthesis is a necessary part of every
article.
Frankly, I think such a limited exception is not enough to restrict
what is OR, since listing out random facts is not a good thing either.
Anthony