Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches/Archive1

Discussion elsewhere

I just saw the trainwreck that is this page. Ugh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a big problem on a FAC a few months ago (if you need the example, it would take me some time to find it because I can't remember the article name, also an attempt at serious discussion of the problem at WIAFA never got off the ground, strangely, considering other concerns at WIAFA), but I do hope the article highlights that the issue is big at DYK because of the "reward" potential of quickly expanding an article to earn a DYK. I believe there were some very long threads a few months back at DYK talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, were you referring to this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion linked in SG's post, I had this in mind. (Look at the final Oppose.) But I have noticed it in other FAs, and it seems to be a particular problem at DYK. Kablammo (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Another trainwreck of a discussion that shows how few people understand what plagiarism is. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can this be ready to go by Sunday (March 15), or should it be put off for another week? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be tough for me alone to do it by Sunday. I'm off tomorrow on a rather mad two-day trip to the UK. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On my way home. This week will also be busy, I'm afraid, as I catch up on what's not been done while I've been away. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It can be put off for another week; better to do it right! Have a good trip home! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't even see this discussion. I'm on break right now, so I can work on this pretty hard. Awadewit (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

There have been a number of discussion on the use of public domain material on Wikipedia. There may be hundreds of articles on ships which are, or originated as, verbatim copies of entries from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS). (USS Franklin (CV-13), mentioned on the Main Page in On this day... for 19 March 2009, is one example.) The use of verbatim PD text for such articles, without quotes or inline cites, but with a note at the bottom of the text or in the reference section, has not been considered to be plagiarism. An attempt last fall to exclude new PD-copied articles from eligibility for DYK went nowhere, in part because of the reliance on DANFS by creators of new articles who want DYK credit. Kablammo (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I consider this a problem, as PD does need to be enclosed in quotes. Awadewit (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There will be a lot of resistance to that, as the practice is so ingrained. It is used even by established, competent editors who have created other fine articles without the incorporation of PD text. Kablammo (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are two discussions:

• Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_32#Copyvio_and_excessive_quotations
• Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_32#Removal_of_Early_history_of_Turkmenistan_from_DYK_template

It's beginning to come together, but the article doesn't yet mention the significant problem of plagiarism at DYK, partly due to the "reward" factor of DYKs. Can someone add a paragraph, linking the two discussions above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of "reward factor" as a red flag to initiate a check for plagiarism is a good idea, but I'm not sure it's going to be necessary or productive to "call out" a particular process or editor (quickly determined from the article link). Although certainly not your intent, it could be misinterpreted as chastising. Эlcobbola _talk 15:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this close? I'm attempting not a single anything/one out and maintain the assumption of good faith. Эlcobbola _talk 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on calling out DYK. I think that one reason plagiarism is caught at DYK is because it is one of the few places on Wikipedia where source material is actually checked against the article (we don't even do that at FAC). I'm also not keen on complaining about the "reward factor" - that is a much larger problem which contributes to many kinds of poor writing and sourcing. It is not specific to plagiarism. Awadewit (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have come across several clear instances of plagiarism at DYK; I have seen it at FAC. DYK is a high-volume, sometimes last-minute process, where only the referenced hook is checked. There is no checking of source material beyond that, unless a reviewer takes on that task. We don't routinely fact-check FAC, and with reviewers spread so thin it's not likely to occur. And the "reward factor" definitely contributes to the problem. Kablammo (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I agree however that it would be best not to specifically "call out" specific examples, projects, or areas-- the issue goes beyond DYK, as my comment indicates. But there is competition for DYK noms and points in a contest; there is also the perception that an FA is helpful at RfA. We also have a long-term tolerance and acceptance of reusing PD material without quotes, including US gov't sources, 1911 EB, Catholic Encylopedia. Our approach should not be to criticize what has been done-- even encouraged-- in the past, but to establish that Wikipedia should move beyond that. Many of the editors who use PD text without quotes, and only general attibution, are perfectly capable of creating excellent content, and often do so. Kablammo (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(out indent) Do you think we've struck the right tone in the dispatch or is further refinement required? Awadewit (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think so, but I have not studied all of it, and may be too close to parts of it. I hope Tony1 will make a complete pass to see how it coheres. Kablammo (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

One way to minimize the tendency to reuse text, is not to copy and paste it on one's screen, as the basis for a working draft. (There have been new articles which obviously were cut and pasted from recent obituaries, and then reworked, often very lightly.) Printing out internet sources, assembling and organizing them, and then writing a draft, reduces the temptation (and makes it harder to) adopt verbatim language from the source. Kablammo (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - could you add this into the document? Awadewit (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but without pride of authorship-- rework it as you see fit. Kablammo (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit, looking at your changes (which I surely invited!), I think we are talking about two different methods. I was suggesting the old method (and I may be revealing something about my age here) of assembling printed materials, segregating them by subject matter, then segregating within each pile, and creating text with appropriate transitions, selective quoting, etc. You are, I believe, speaking of an electronic analogue to that process. I'm concerned the revisions may conflate the two. What we want to avoid is a process where, for examples, an on-line biography, obit, or account of an event is copied onto a screen, the editor goes through it and changes punctuation, some words, and perhaps reorders some content, decorates it with a few other tidbits or sources, and submits it. To me it is easier to avoid that if one does not work from an electronic text to start with, but I recognize that is not the only way. Kablammo (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The process you describe is one I do electronically and it is an excellent way to avoid plagiarism. Could you reword the section of the dispatch so that our recommendation about organizational methods (either in print or online) is made clearer? Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a try, but you may have to do the electonic part, while I'll focus on the method used by a dwindling pool of Luddites. Kablammo (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A-- I took a crack at it and handled it in one place. Refine as appropriate. Kablammo (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I like what you've done - I've just tweaked it a bit. Awadewit (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Foreign languages

Would it be helpful to mention that even translation is not sufficient to avoid plagiarism, as it does not resolve the issue of "use[ing] ... ideas of another author and representat[ing] ... them as one's own original work"? Further, and in the same vein, it might be worth mentioning that we can essentially "plagiarize ourselves" by translating articles across projects. If I recall correctly, this was an issue with a 1964 Gabon coup d'état FAC. Эlcobbola _talk 00:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. (As somebody who's just had to speak to two students who handed in essays with more or less significant instances of plagiarism, I feel a bit up to my ears with this. And the real problem for someone whose students often have to turn in essays in another language, is that "translation plagiarism" is impossible to detect by googling.)

I'm less sure, however, about plagiarism across projects or within Wikipedia, mostly because the notion of authorship is quite different on a Wiki. The problem with 1964 Gabon coup d'état was not plagiarism, but rather than the translators of that article had not checked sufficiently the sources upon which the original relied. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I gather that attribution and some link to the article history is neccessary to comply with section 4 I of the GFDL (so we don't plagiarise other wikis) - you can use {{Translated page}} to easily do that with translated pages (an example is Seraphita). --Malkinann (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Current example

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Another: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spokane, Washington/archive2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Awadewit (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nevado del Ruiz/archive2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Timing ?

Is there any chance of this being completed for Monday, March 30 ? (Otherwise, I'm going to have to pull something out of a hat.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone else working on this? I can't be done by tomorrow, I'm afraid. This needs much more work. Awadewit (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hi. :) SandyGeorgia mentioned this to me, and though I don't do as much with plagiarism (by a long shot) as I do with copyright infringement, I wanted to drop in and see if I could offer input. One thing I noted that could be contentious is this: "Very often plagiarism is accidental or inadvertent—it is still plagiarism." I agree with this, as it fits into my understanding of plagiarism, but I have learned that this is not a universally held opinion. In fact, it's fairly hotly contested here by one individual, and I recently ran into another on (I think!) ANI who strongly voiced similar concerns. I don't know how widespread that debate is, but I bring it up in case it's worth a footnote or expansion. I have no experience whatsoever in the writing of the FCDW. :)

Are you aware that there is a Wikipedia essay on close paraphrasing? It's a rather young essay, but might prove helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I teach writing at the college level, I am quite jaded about plagiarism. I do not believe that it is really done unknowingly by anyone in the US over the age of 14 or so. However, on Wikipedia, we should "assume good faith" because we don't know the educational background of most of the editors. Besides, presenting this dispatch in the best possible terms to plagiarizers out there ("we know you didn't mean it - we'll give you a second chance") is probably politically savvy. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Some overhauling

Hi. Apologies if I've stepped on any toes with my revisions here. I hope that the changes I've got will seem to be in a constructive direction. :) I'm hoping to get some feedback and also to find out if this should address handling problem plagiarists. Is it worth mentioning that repeat offenders may require community intervention? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• That is a good idea to mention. I don't know who made what changes, but I think this dispatch is shaping up quite well. Awadewit (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is looking very good, thanks mainly to the efforts of you two. Question: given its length, would a short précis or executive summary at the outset be appropriate? Kablammo (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am of two minds about a summary: A summary would be good as it would repeat key points, but it might also discourage readers from reading the entire dispatch. I'm not leaning strongly one way or the other. Awadewit (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a summary sentence at the outset, by this edit. Kablammo (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

←I think that may need some work: "Wikipedia editors should create their own articles, not adopt, adapt, or rewrite the work of others." We actually devote a good bit of this essay explaining precisely how the work of others should be adapted. Telling them not to do that could be confusing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken out "adapt and rewrite". If it can otherwise be improved, feel free. Kablammo (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that I might like the opening sentence somewhat better as it was. It's punchy and to the point. I do agree, though, that the lead needs expansion. Perhaps the expansion could be placed after it is still plagiarism? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought of using the thought to close the dispatch, but it does not really fit there. Can you take a crack at a (modest) expansion of the introduction? Kablammo (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a stab. :) I moved your sentence a bit back and added some sourced "why we shouldn't do this" notes. (For some reason, the editor1-first and editor1-last templates aren't working properly for me in the citebook, though. :/ Can anybody see what I did wrong?) (Oh, by the way, I do believe that it is a common problem that people inadvertently bring material back to the original language; it's an aspect of cryptomnesia—to quote Kellogg on the matter, "inadvertent plagiarism [when]...a writer fails to acknowledge unwittingly an earlier source due to the failure to recognize his or her own thoughts and words as unoriginal."(Kellogg, Ronald Thomas (1999). The Psychology of Writing. Oxford University Press US. p. 85. ISBN 0195129083.) On the "original research" side of things, it has happened to me more than once, and I believe I've observed it directly both in my own college writing students and in professionals I've edited. It's always possible, of course, that at least some of them have lied. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement

Less-commonly known facts ... must be cited to avoid plagiarism

This is not necessarily true. That companies often elect to file executive compensation information with the SEC in DEF 14A filings instead of 10-K filings is a "less commonly known fact". It may indeed require citation to be used in Wikipedia (per WP:V, et al), but inclusion of that fact would not be plagiarism. Эlcobbola _talk 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a better way to word it? California State San Marcos refers to ubiquity in determining which facts are common within a discipline and which are not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On a perhaps personal level, I disagree with the notion that any such fact (well-known or otherwise) can be plagiarized. The definition of plagiarism used in this dispatch sets forth “language” and “ideas” as the elements that may not be too closely imitated without acknowledgment of the source. “Language” (in this context - word choice) and “ideas” are creative things. Facts are not; they are supposed to be “raw” statements of truth and are devoid of creativity by nature. Perhaps I can’t argue with a reliable source, but rephrasing to ensure we are addressing the logical consequence of the definition of plagiarism would be beneficial -- id est, it is not that fact that is being plagiarized, but the [unique/original/etc] way in which it is being presented. Эlcobbola _talk 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, my professional background undoubtedly informs my opinion of plagiarism, but I believe that while copyright law does not recognize "sweat of the brow", journalistic ethics basically do. I know that academic ethics do. The definition of plagiarism adopted by the Council of Writing Program Administrators is specialized to instructional settings, but it says that "plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledg­ing its source."([1]) To quote Tim Roberts' Student Plagiarism in an Online World, "The concept of "common vs. plagiarized knowledge" is an issue that needs teasing out to as to clarify the debate around plagiarism.... Common knowledge is that set of shared ideas and background knowledge that defines a demographic group. Plagiarized knowledge is knowledge defined as belonging to another person and used without that person's permission and without acknowledging that other person."(Roberts, Tim S. (2007). Student Plagiarism in an Online World: Problems and Solutions. Idea Group Inc. p. 196. ISBN 1599048019.—and just as a note, there's some interesting material in that book on the history of knowledge as property.) While I agree that the thrust of this dispatch should be on avoiding plagiarizing the creative aspects of sources, I don't think we should completely omit reference to plagiarized knowledge, even though I didn't use that term in the dispatch itself. (It is not, I believe, widely adopted and may be outright owned by Roberts. :)) Emory and the Walker Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication seem to me to support the idea that the journalistic code of ethics considers failure to attribute (non-ubiquitous) information as plagiarism, too, although neither includes specific language in a clear definition. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the choice of examples can be plagiarized - I view this as part of organizational structure. Such things are not necessarily protected by copyright, but, ethically, one is required to say where the examples came from, right? However, the much more pressing matter is plagiarism of creative expression. I think we have struck the right balance here. Thoughts? Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Decision time

Unless editors involved here tell me this is ready to run this week (April 6, Sunday night/Monday morning), I will submit another Dispatch this week, and run this on April 13. Feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's down to fine-tuning, and I think it should be ready for this week. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I can work some more on it this weekend - it should be ready by Sunday/Monday. Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rethinking this: since we want this to get widely viewed, and many people may be on vacation or break this week, it might be better to hold off a week ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. We still need someone to add a section on foreign-language plagiarism. This is not my area of expertise, however. Could Jbmurray or Elcobbola add this? Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Elcobbola has done some writing on this in the past; perhaps we can entice him to add something? I think he already has some wording somewhere in his talk page archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The only other thing we should probably add is something about habitual plagiarists. I think Moonriddengirl was going to add this. I've done some copyediting, so I think the dispatch is pretty solid right now. Awadewit (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I've been swamped by copyvio issues today (another massive infringer). I'm not sure that I'd have a lot to say about mass-plagiarists, though I do think we should mention. What's the general protocol for plagiarists? ANI? RFC? Copyright infringers require admin action, but plagiarists may be different. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a general protocol - that is part of the problem. Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggested both. Briefly addressed; open for revision and improvement. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we should mention that there isn't a general protocol laid out in an accepted policy yet and note this as a problem? Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion after "publication"

When this piece is "published", will this talk page go with it? If so, it might be a good idea to archive it, discussions prompted by the publication can start afresh. (Discussions here of course will still be accessible in the archive.) And should individual processes and projects be notified, and, if so, how? Kablammo (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page goes with, and we could archive this page just before publication. Kablammo, since you are (I believe) the editor here who has been most involved with DYK, perhaps it would be helpful if you presented it with an introductory blurb at DYK? Someone else may want to present it at FAC and elsewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I shudda kep ma big mouf' shut. I see that Awadwit is pretty active there now-- I'm a recovering DYKer. Kablammo (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed Mattisse is already linking people to this dispatch over at DYK! :) I'll drop a note over there and at FAC. Who wants to take GAN and PR? Other places? Awadewit (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

eeeek. Can we hold off until it's published, and Tony has gone through? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled to publish at The Signpost on April 13: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom; it would be good to have it finished by Friday the 10th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's good to go. Of course, something like this can always be micromanaged eternally, but it reads smoothly and it seems to me to cover all major elements with proper focus on each. I've enjoyed collaborating on it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of fine points (sorry for the micromanaging):

• Plagiarism and copyright infringement: "If this was indeed the reaction of Wikipedia editors, they were mistaken." Is there a source we could cite which would directly support the assertion that use of PD sources is plagiarism?
• What to cite: the "common knowledge" exception: "Accordingly, while text such as 'Dickinson was born on December 10, 1830' can be copied without quotation marks, care must be taken." This seems to be an incomplete thought. Can it be expanded to state the point directly?
• Addressing plagiarism-- Would it be better to have the template before the first and second paragraphs, and/(or)with an introductory sentence, to avoid confusion?

• I moved some text around on this; would others have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have enjoyed the collaboration as well. Kablammo (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added more to the Dickinson sentence. As to the template, I suspect it's there illustratively, and as I am relatively devoid of aesthetic sense, I will leave that to somebody else to address. :) I can see the potential confusion, though. I wonder if we could enclose it in a colored box or something? Take a screen cap and tuck it to the side? With respect to Tony's hidden note about "Atypical elegance", I am inclined to agree and am going to try merging it to the next red flag. If it doesn't work for people, I naturally have no objection if somebody restores what we had while we discuss different approaches. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I sat down to try to actually merge this, it seemed to me that it was probably already implied in "hasty construction" and "inconsistent authorial voice". I did add a specific reference to "atypical elegance" in the latter, but didn't merge any of the material. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The template is there illustratively - I don't know how to put it in a box, though. I disagree very strongly about merging "atypical elegance" - that is, in fact, how I catch most plagiarism. The bulk of Wikipedia is very poorly written and I would never make the claim that Wikipedia is "moving towards professionalism". Awadewit (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

All right. I've unmerged it. :) Is there some way that we can tweak this so that we don't create paranoia where more professional should be expected, as with heavily polished articles? I would say experienced contributors, but, sadly, I've had cause lately to know all too well that "experienced" doesn't mean "not going to infringe/plagiarize". :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We could list examples of where excellent writing is expected (such as FAs), but note that this does not always mean that plagiarism doesn't exist. Awadewit (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, though it would make the elegance of the writing less of a red flag in itself. Shall I try to come up with some language for that, or would you like to? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to leave to go teach right now, so I will be gone for several hours. If you could do it, that would be great. Awadewit (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Have fun. :) (I miss teaching. I haven't been in the classroom in years. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Argh! I was asked for a "10 minute" version of Hindus vs. Muslims in India and was rather unprepared. :( Working on that this weekend. Awadewit (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

In the past several weeks I have seen an EB1911-based article (John Byng) and a DANFS article (USS Franklin (CV-13)) attract attention because of links from WP:On this day. In each case there was criticism of the tone of the borrowed text (NPOV), and changes to it. Where the original text is not directly cited, but covered only by a template indicating the PD source at the bottom of the article, and uncited changes are made to that original text, does that cause any issues with attribution or license? I recognize this is too fine a detail to deal with in this dispatch, but the answer might affect the discussion. Kablammo (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now, there's a whole new kettle of fish. :) It's touched on at the existing plagiarism guideline proposal, here. According to that guideline, the use of this material is a bit contentious anyways. That guideline recommends placing the pd text in one fell sweep so that its attribution is clear in the history of the article, just as the attribution of Wikipedia's own contributors is. This is a kind of specialized problem, obviously, arising from the fact that our articles do not have by-lines of their own. If they did, then all copied text would require quotation marks, just as they do in academics, where it doesn't matter if the source is pd or otherwise. I am personally inclined to think that it may be best to leave this one for resolution to that proposal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. As your links show, PD text is often used as the base for the article, but is modified before publication, so the article which appears is an olio of both the PD source and the editor's work, confusing the attribution. I understand that subsequent changes are reflected in the edit history. Kablammo (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation examples

Tony wonders if we can lose one of the examples for length concerns, [2]. I'm inclined to agree. Both are good examples, but cover similar ground. Since example 2 has more analysis, I've cut out example 1, but retained some of the language, which I quite liked. I've also removed the level five header by replacing it with whatever you call that thing that happens when you put ";" before text. :) I've also wikilinked to the article being used as an example. We don't want to embarrass anybody, obviously, but there are copyright issues with reproducing the text here without attribution.

Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That is fine with me. My biggest worry with linking to the article is that it would highlight one particular editor's plagiarism, but I do think we need specific examples. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I share your concern about embarrassing any particular contributor. We could substitute an example from a contributors whose plagiarism is already well-known and well-established? I seem to recall that a contributor working on science or perhaps botany related articles was brought to ANI for plagiarism. Obviously, I don't remember many details. :) But if we used an example from the contribution history of such a contributor, there would be no potential further damage to reputation? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A repeat offender would be better, yes. Does anyone know where to find this example? Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've put out some queries, but my recollection (perhaps faulty) is that it wasn't an ArbCom, rather a long discussion at ANI. We could ask at Wp:ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this it? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup Awadewit (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe so ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not the one I meant. That was a straight-up copyright violation, not a plagiarism issue, and the examples we'd have are straightforward pasting. I'll see what I can find. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Was it editor Sadi Carnot (sp?) or socks? We could review ArbCom archives if we had a clue ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

←I know it's incredibly vague. :/ Sorry. I may not be remembering correctly at all, since it's been a while. I'm thinking it was some science-related field. I'm currently doing a google search of Wikipedia to see what I can find for "ban + plagiarism". Maybe it'll turn up. If not, maybe something else will. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to update, I've found an example where an external source plagiarized on Wikipedia. Some of the duplication is verbatim, but some is not: User:Ydorb/khobar-copyvio, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-11-19/Khobar plagiarism. If needs must, we could probably craft an example from this. Meanwhile, still looking. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would confuse matters. We really need an example of contributors plagiarizing. Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-30/Plagiarism cleanup: this one (history still intact) offers a little revision of the source. It also generates this list, which I'm examining now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

← Moonriddengirl: I think this may be the incident of plagiarism that you're thinking of. Please to enjoy. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoot! Yes! That's it! Thank you. :D I'll go see if there's something usable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet found any examples in her contrib history (deleted or otherwise) that are quite as good as the one we currently have. :/ It seems we either compromise on quality or risk embarrassing the contributor of a sample like the one currently in use, if people trouble to track it down. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the one we have is particularly good, because it is the kind of adaptation that people might not consider plagiarism. How about we archive the talk page of the article, so that the editors involved are not so obvious? Awadewit (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The three listed under Current examples (above) were already highlighted at FAC. Archiving the talk page would be good, but is everything covered ? For example, foreign language translations? And a citation for no copying of PD text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll bring in foreign language translations. Citation for not copying PD text? Do you mean, specifically mentioning that it's still plagiarism to steal the ideas of somebody in public domain? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On PD text, I'm referring to this commentary: [3] On foreign languages, there's discussion at User talk:Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

←I've sourced PD. I've added a brief note on foreign language texts, though I did it in the section on spotting plagiarism. I would like to find a more clear citation, but haven't had luck. The one I've got I'd have to reproduce practically a full paragraph to incorporate the word "plagiarism" in conjunction with the problem. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Inlines to be resolved

I'm putting the remaining inline queries here, as they can be hard to follow:

• If the article has a multi-authored feel but appears to be largely single-authored, there could be reason for concern< !--Why?-->.
• that are added to the top of suspect section or article and may draw attention to the problem; concerns might be noted at an appropriate forum< !-- which is ? -->

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've answered the first one, I hope, though the language may need tweaking. As to the second: good question. Right now, I would myself go to Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. It's not in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. But a glance at the talk page of that proposed guideline tells me that a request is unlikely to be noted there. Unless somebody else can think of a good forum, maybe that needs to be dropped. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I understanding correctly that we currently have no forum for plagiarism cleanup, because it's outside of the scope of Copyright Cleanup? Wow. Then I guess we have to drop it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So it seems. :/ We can suggest Copyright Cleanup. It doesn't have a large membership yet, but I imagine that the members there would be happy to look at plagiarism issues even if it's not in the mission statement; there's overlap, after all, since plagiarism and copyright violations often do go hand-in-hand. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I had suggested earlier that we explicitly state that one of the problems of not having an accepted guideline is that there are no protocols for plagiarism - another problem is there are no projects. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Given clear guidelines on plagiarism, it would seem natural to make addressing it a part of Copyright Cleanup, since there often is overlap. I would love to see the plagiarism guideline adopted by the community. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So, should we address this directly (state that there is no current forum or policy, but suggest Copyright Cleanup)? Also, {{Close paraphrase}} seems to be the better template to illustrate plagiarism; should we switch the sample template? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

←I've taken a stab at it. I had switched the template, but switched it back. {{Close paraphrase}} was written in service to copyright issues and specifies that the source is not free. {{Copypaste}} at least covers both free- and non-free text. Unless the Close paraphrase template is modified, along with the essay it links to, we might want to use the one that covers both. I have pasted the code directly rather than adding the template because we don't want this page to be listed for clean-up with the automatically added categories. Unless pages with this prefix are exempt? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like these two sections are all wrapped up now; shall I archive them now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If others are happy, I'm happy. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy. Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)