[WikiEN-l] History of "Verifiability, not truth"

[Ken Arromdee]

>What it's trying to do is clear - and the plagiarism  
>example a bit further down is (mostly) spot-on. (It's not unreasonable  
>to mention the Chicago Manual for context there - it's the explicit  
>conclusion-drawing that is a problem)

I don't agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/FAQ#Plagiarism_example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Archive_9#Synthesis_example

Very brief summary: I think this is a reliable sources issue (the Chicago
Manual of Style isn't a reliable source on whether any particular person has
committed plagiarism), not an original research issue (it's not original
research because the conclusion "by the Chicago Manual's definition,
Smith is a plagiarist" is a straightforward logical deduction.)

It's as if the Chicago Manual of Style had defined a plagiarist as an apple,
and then someone wrote "according to the Chicago Manual of Style, a Yellow
Delicious is a plagiarist".  Unreliable source (it obviously contains bad
definitions)--certainly.  Original research (determining that something
satisfies the definition)--not at all.

Also, the example is based on a real case and seems to misrepresent what
went on in that real case.