Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/21/06, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
For quite a while now I've been using
Wikipedia first before IMDB when I
want to know whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is
rather important in that regard.
No one, but no one, is claiming that synopsises of TV shows are
fancruft.
Anthony apparently does. Here's what he wrote in the email this was a
response to:
I think summarizing something directly (e.g. using a
Friends episode
as a source for facts about itself) is, by its very definition,
original research. The Friends episode isn't even a primary source in
this case - the Friends episode is the subject, and the summary would
be the primary source.
There are a number of reasons to do this. One is that it helps lessen
the amount of "fancruft".
I was mainly disagreeing with the notion that the episode itself isn't
an acceptable source for a description of the episode, but this other
notion about the summary being fancruft seems implied as well.