[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Jeff Raymond]

Guettarda wrote:
> In a recent posting, Jimbo stated that anything that draws from primary
> sources is OR.  The section is question was drawn in part from primary
> sources (San Diego courts case detail, a Superior court judgement).  In
> reference to this, Jimbo said:
>
> ...
>
> Jimbo is making the assertion that using primary source documents, like
> legal rulings, is ALSO original research, despite the fact that common
> practice is Wikipedia goes the opposite way.  By extension, everything
> that
> cites original sources is OR, right?

If we're hearing "draws" as "cites," then this is an epic change and not
for the better.  If "draws" is "I cite X, and claim it says Y," then it
doesn't appear to be a change in anything.  I can't cite a primary source
and then make any determination on it (draw anything from it) - I can
merely say what it says.

Some clarity might help.

-Jeff