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