3 ms·
>Even the Wikipedia article on CISPA was horrible since it didn't directly quote the bill but just quoted others people paraphrasing the bill. Direct quoting o
by anonymfus 14y ago
>Even the Wikipedia article on CISPA was horrible since it didn't directly quote the bill but just quoted others people paraphrasing the bill.
Direct quoting of something to prove something is "original research", then it's violation of Wikipedia's rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
- Jtsummers 14y agoDirectly quoting the law and citing the source of the law would not be "original research" in the context of your link. To quote your link: The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material--such as facts, allegations, and ideas--for which no reliable, published sources exist. For example, the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S... includes the text of the US Constitution's 1st Amendment. By your interpretation that would make it original research. Directly quoting a bill, citing the house.gov or whichever source, provides context for the ensuing discussion (pros and cons) which in turn should consist of a set of citations.