 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Speedy deletion, contest edit
The directly copied sections from the article are copied quotes from the High Court. Direct quotes from courts are not copyright violations under wikipedia guidelines Jack4576 (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:Shirt58, the parts of the article that are similar have been cited directly. They have been re-worded, extracted, and re-expressed in a way so as not to amount to a copyright violation. In addition, the parts that are similar from the article simply recount the facts of the court case. Those facts mentioned in the article are lifted directly from the judgement. To claim that a reciting of the case's facts is plagiarism, is simply untrue. The author has also been cited directly each time this has happened; so plagiarism cannot be an issue. This article does not 'pass off' the author's work as wikipedia's own. Jack4576 (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to add that the sections that appear later that are also from the OpinionsOnHigh piece, are also lifted directly from the judgement (for example, the quote about 'humbugging' by relatives.) This, especially with regard to an article that is directly cited each time this happens is not Plagiarism (which is the representation of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work). Wikipedia is not an academic journal. The author has been cited, and there is no copyright violation. This is an article about a court case, quoting sections of the judgement as extracted by an expert academic on the subject, who is extensively cited within the article. There is simply no reason for deletion, or extraction of the relevant quotes from the judgement. Jack4576 (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio tag edit
I ran the duplication detector at https://dupdet.toolforge.org/compare.php?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.unimelb.edu.au%2Fopinionsonhigh%2F2019%2F06%2F20%2Faustralian-securities-and-investments-commission-v-kobelt%2F&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FASIC_v_Kobelt&minwords=12&minchars=13
and the longest duplicates detected were in quotes. RJFJR (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. The potions taken from the article directly, are quotes of the High Court judgement. Including them within this wikipedia article, especially while citing the academic who extracted those quotes from the judgement, is not a copyright violation. Jack4576 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)