- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Puhinui Craters edit
- ... that the newly discovered Puhinui Craters form the only cluster of three small maars in the Auckland Volcanic Field?
Created/expanded by Bruce Hayward (talk). Nominated by Avenue (talk) at 12:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There are some close paraphrasing concerns, "puhinui pond crater near the reserve entrance is currently filled with a farm pond" in the article and "puhinui pond crater near the entrance to the reserve is currently filled with a pond" in source #3 and "atop their own small tuff cone made of the erupted volcanic ash" in the article and "of its own low tuff cone made of erupted volcanic ash one crater" in source #1 are the main examples. I don't think that this will require too much work to fix. Mikenorton (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I can rewrite those bits if necessary. But I should have noted that the creator of our article is also the lead author of source #3, and is the expert being quoted at length in source #1. As a general point, do we need to be concerned about close paraphrasing when the editor is also the author of the source? It seems to me that you can't plagiarise yourself. --Avenue (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Does he own the copyright? Has he waived it? Has he declared a COI? BTW, how do you know the account BruceHayward is that same person-- I see no on-Wiki post to that effect, have I missed it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've met him in person, and based on what he said then about his Wikipedia editing, I'm sure this user is really him. If you'd rather it came from him, I think the edit summary here is pretty clear.
- I've reread WP:COI, and I don't see how anyone could reasonably suggest his edits to this article present a conflict of interest. Even if he had one, editing under his real name certainly shows he wouldn't have been trying to hide it.
- We all license our copyrighted contributions freely when we publish them here. I see no grounds for thinking that he wouldn't own the copyright. --Avenue (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- You didn't answer the question: does he own the copyright on the original publication? Is he releasing it? Who published the work (if a journal, do they own the copyright)? Has he written to OTRS to release his copyright? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've now rewritten the part that appeared too close to source #1, as that source did not present this as a direct quote from Dr Hayward (the creator of our article), so there might have been some doubt about who first used that wording. I still see little point in rewording the bit matching source #3. --Avenue (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
In addition to the close-paraphrasing concerns (and yes, you can plagiarize yourself), I would also note that without the near-verbatim repetition in the second paragraph the article is too short. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain how you can plagiarise yourself. It doesn't seem to be logically possible based on our definition (from WP:Plagiarism): "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit." [Emphasis added] --Avenue (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Because a) it's unclear whether he holds copyright to the published source or not, and b) he's not the sole author of the piece in question. In addition, I would question whether that sentence from the intro is accurate, given that self-plagiarism is not included under "what is not plagiarism" and is widely considered plagiarism "in the real world". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain how you can plagiarise yourself. It doesn't seem to be logically possible based on our definition (from WP:Plagiarism): "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit." [Emphasis added] --Avenue (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- At 1623 bytes, how exactly is it too short? Óðinn (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Because if you remove the near-verbatim repetition in the second paragraph, it isn't 1623 bytes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rewrote the offending paragraph. Óðinn (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is beginning to seem like bureaucracy gone mad. It makes no sense to rewrite contributions from someone with over 30 year's experience in the field just to avoid a problem that can't logically exist. --Avenue (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Someone's expertise is not the issue here. It's just that the DYK section has on occasion being scandalized by blatant copyright violations that made people around here rather edgy - often excessively so. That said, I'm not touching another word of the article; we'll just have to wait some more until someone exerts the monumental effort of applying the green checkmark. Óðinn (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is beginning to seem like bureaucracy gone mad. It makes no sense to rewrite contributions from someone with over 30 year's experience in the field just to avoid a problem that can't logically exist. --Avenue (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rewrote the offending paragraph. Óðinn (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Because if you remove the near-verbatim repetition in the second paragraph, it isn't 1623 bytes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)