[WikiEN-l] While we're at it, NOR line-by-line

[Phil Sandifer]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:51 PM, <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:

>
> In a message dated 4/7/2008 11:49:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> snowspinner at gmail.com writes:
>
> Which  I'm not advocating. I'm saying that we need to understand that
> the  relationship between a summary and a source is not 1:1, and that
> any  summary is going to introduce material that is not from sources.
> Such information cannot simply be cut out of the process - it needs  to
> be carefully engaged with. Sources are vital, but we cannot  pretend
> that an article is simply a natural and obvious extension of  its
> sources.>>
>
>
> -----------------
> Sure, provided that the additional information is simple infererence,
> observation, deduction, with which a person "skilled in the art" would in
>  general
> agree.  We already cover this.
>

Actually, and this is my complaint, we currently demand that a person
*unskilled* in the art be able to do it.

-Phil