Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-10-01

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-10-01. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism (13,192 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-10-01

Discuss this story

• We have a copy and paste detection bot here that keeps an eye on medical topics. It is working fairly well with a 50/50 rate of true positives to false positives. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• In almost all of the articles where some or all of the text is taken from the 1911 Brittanica or similar old sources sources, or public domain US government material, there is only a general attribution, usually given by the template {{EB1911}} or the like. It is almost never indicated in the article just what portions of the text were taken. In some cases it can be figured out from the edit history, in all cases it could be determined from the original, but there seems to be no specific policy requiring this to be done, whether for the many such contributions in earlier years or the continuing use nowadays mostly from PD-USgov (this is currently most prevalent in military biographies) I have on occasion posted to people adding such material asking they do so, and I have never gotten a response that indicates that they acknowledge the need for it. I suggest we add a specific statement, and enforce it. As for dealing with the present material, it's time for a cleanup. Presumably someone could do a bot, but it could even be done manually, though I'm not prepared to do that single-handed--and not until the inflow of new such material has been stopped. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is time to cease use of these general attribution templates. There likely are hundreds of articles which are verbatim transcriptions of DANFS ship histories. These histories are generally competent but often are written in a breezy style and not from a neutral viewpoint. EB1911 articles can be very well-written but opinionated. (Cf. John Byng with its 1911 EB source; some of the latter is still present in our article.) It is difficult to tell who wrote what. Wikipedia should have progressed beyond copying PD sources, which preserves the flaws of the source and often is then bowdlerized by later edits. This is not a criticism of those who created the articles, as that practice was commonly accepted. But it is a practice we no longer need, and from what I have seen, at least some of the editors who used that practice are very capable of writing well-researched and well-written articles, equal or superior to a PD source. Kablammo (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• What is the policy on using closely paraphrased excerpts from peer reviewed journal article abstracts? I see very experienced editors doing that all the time, and given that abstracts are published for indexing, I'm not sure if there is anything technically or morally wrong with it, especially when the citation has a link back to where someone can download -- or buy -- the source article. I know I'd be pretty pissed off if I saw anti-copyvio reverts of that sort of thing. (I'm logging out so my contribs won't be given any extra scrutiny by potential copyright paranoiacs, even though I almost always use inline phrase or single-sentence quotes for that sort of thing.) 173.197.107.11 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In my mind, it's plagiarism, even if you're linking back to the original source. Wikipedia's slightly more lenient, but the guidelines clearly note that summarizing material in your own words is preferred. Does it really take that much longer to rewrite the passage? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Wikipedians can usually technically improve the original anyway; that should be the start of the non-close paraphrasing effort. Tony (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess that depends on how much spare time is available. 173.197.107.11 (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If the source is copyrighted (and abstracts likely are; see, for example - "NLM data licensees and others contemplating any type of transmission or reproduction of copyrighted material such as abstracts...."), you should put verbatim taking into quotation marks but otherwise put the material in your own words and structure in accordance with WP:C. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that analysis informed by or oblivious to fair use considerations? I would hope that reasonable editors go after lengthy copyvio passages before they start making judgement calls about how close is too close a paraphrase for abstract text. 173.197.107.11 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume informed by, as what's the fair use rationale for text? Images like logos are clear unreplaceable, but undistinctive text can nearly always be rewarded ("undistinctive" because there are places for quotes from primary sources, etc.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. :) Your question was about policy - policy is at WP:C and WP:NFCC. Wikipedia is deliberately narrow in application of fair use for a number of reasons, including that content on Wikipedia is meant to be reusable by anyone, anywhere, in any context. What passes for fair use in one country in one situation may not be acceptable in another. By clearly marking quotations, we offer reusers the opportunity to assess whether what we believe is "fair use" works for them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue of whether the image caption is part of the image has also come up. I'd appreciate your opinion on that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate, Hawkeye7? I don't really understand the question. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

When uploading an image, should one upload the original caption as well? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't do much with images, Hawkeye7, so I've never put any thought into this at all, but I'm not sure how that applies? I mean, plagiarism doesn't require keeping intact all of the text you use - it just requires properly attributing what you do use. It's quite possible I still don't take your meaning, here. :) Can you give an example of when separating a caption from an image has been questioned plagiarism? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking of Intellectual sloppiness, the first footnote points to the first page of the article being cited. (A common way of citing a journal or book article in some academic circles.) The actual material being summarised is on pp. 226–227 (I think), although the term "outright theft" appears on p. 211 in another essay. In neither case is plagiarism equated with theft in the legal sense. This neatly illustrates the danger of paraphrase: unless you really understand what it being said, you run the risk of getting it wrong. That is of course the whole reason for asking the undergraduates to paraphrase; but on Wikipedia it means that secondary sources cannot be paraphrased without double-checking. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• How does this apply to copying/merging/splitting Wikipedia articles? Whilst okay with regard to copyright due to CC-BY-SA licencing, there is no quotation marks around the copied material, and no in-text acknowledgement of the source copied from. It seems like most cases of merging, splitting, or other copying is actually plagiarism. - Evad37 [talk] 03:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting question. I think in the case of Wikipedia, we treat it more as a collective work, Evad, than as a work of individual authorship. However, even if we did treat it as individual authorship, I think that the plagiarism concerns are somewhat addressed by the "history" tab, which allows people to trace word for word who wrote what. While in merged content, you do have to look at the history of another page, it's very much of the record. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Moonriddengirl: Re collective work/individual authorship: It seems strange to treat Wikipedia as a collective work for plagiarism purposes, but as individual works for copyright purposes, where each article (or other page) has distinct authors who retain their copyright. It also doesn't address transwiki-ing, e.g. what if we were to decide that voy:Low-cost airlines (or any article on another WMF wiki) would also make a good encyclopedia article, or a new section of an existing article, and copy it over here? Assuming we do it properly, we would have satisfied the terms of the licencing for reuse, but not the plagiarism rules (copying verbatim without quotation marks and in-text attribution).

Re history tab: If this method of attribution isn't acceptable for public domain or freely/compatibly licensed external works, why is it acceptable for copying within Wikipedia or between WMF projects? Or to put it the other way, if this method is acceptable for copying within Wikipedia or between WMF projects, why isn't it acceptable for public domain or freely/compatibly licensed external works? - Evad37 [talk] 02:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think our handling is different there. Authors do retain copyright, and the history of the page is sufficient for that attribution. We explicitly waived our right to be attributed by name when we agreed that a hyperlink was sufficient, every time we hit "save page". Why would we expect to be treated differently for plagiarism purposes? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying that plagarism doesn't occur if the terms of the CC-BY-SA licence are complied with? - Evad37 [talk] 00:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I believe those of us who contribute to these projects do so under a different understanding. We do so with the full knowledge that our names are not attached in a highly visible way to our work. It's not to do with the license, but with our general expectations on contribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think that there is a fundamental contradiction in Wikipedia's policies, between: (1) no original research and reliable sourcing; and (2) no plagiarism and no copyright violations. You keep trying to straddle the line so that no one can say that you are clearly violating one policy rather than the other. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd agree that it is a challenge particularly for those who have trouble paraphrasing, but it is possible, including by the judicious use of quotations. I don't think it's a contradiction as it is attainable. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with JRSpriggs. For contentious articles (e.g. political BLPs), editors are so sensitive to possible "spin" that it can be difficult to gain consensus for anything but a close paraphrase of the source. --Surturz (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• In those cases, wouldn't quotations serve? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Featured content: Brothers at War (418 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-10-01

Discuss this story

Humphrey, not Humphery Bogart, please! Tim riley talk 19:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

From the editor: The Signpost needs your help (5,657 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-10-01

Discuss this story

I just would like to say that I find it somehow curious that in the Signpost you report about Wikipedia affairs on a weekly basis. We have blogs, and the internet is a 24/7 medium. My suggestion would be to give up the 7-day rhythm of publication and make the Signpost a blog in the first place, featuring blogposts of single stories and notes. If you do not want to follow the example of German Wikipedia running its Kurier as a community-driven kind of blog that everyone can contribute to, you may keep the Signpost a blog written by certain editors, though.--Aschmidt (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

How would that be delivered to a talk page, though? I really don't look at many blogs, but Signpost alerts me when something's new. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I fear User:Aschmidt's comments will make you feel unappreciated so here is another point of view. A blog includes whatever people happen to feel like putting in, whereas a newspaper involves editorial judgment about what is important. As a reader with limited time, I strongly prefer a newspaper, and I appreciate your efforts in putting one together. Opus33 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. A blog doesn't feel like a newspaper. I like the weekly updates that are delivered comfortably to my own talk page, like an old, retired man who is happy to have the morning paper delivered right to his doorstep, where he can use to read... and for his puppy to do its business on. Anyway, switching to a blog would probably mean a lot of messages sent, and I don't think that would be desirable, both for the recipients and for the servers. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 23:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of things happening 24/7 and I have to commit too much of my scarce time to taking care of them. However, The Signpost arrives once a week, it's quite compact, its location and time of arrival are predictable. It's a much calmer way to learn about what's going on, without being drawn into an Amazon-size current of pieces of information. B25es (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Relax. ;) You can update a blog format as you go and continue to deliver a summary of news once a week. There are many ways to do that. As long as someone actually does it. And that's what the op-ed was about in the first place.--Aschmidt (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia Signpost has always been very much like a blog in a sense. Like a blog, anyone can contribute and also anyone can comment on stories as we are doing now. And each week, just as you suggest, the Signpost delivers to our "doors" a weekly summary of the news. So even though this periodical does its best to look like a weekly newspaper, deep down it's just like Wikipedia, in that anyone may get into it and contribute. Do you then suggest that the Signpost should change its appearance to look like a blog? Because in essence, it already pretty much is a blog that just doesn't give the appearance of one. That's my take; I could be wrong. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• I write for newspapers (actual paper ones) and blogs, and there's one fundamental difference: the deadline. Do not underestimate its power. If blogs had editors, they would need deadlines. Some do, but they're actually newspapers in terms of professional commitment. Deadlines = expectation, quality, and accountability. Blogs are fun, but with zero expectation and accountability (no deadline), there's arbitrary quality (no editor). Any questions?--~TPW 12:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do not write for newspapers or for blogs, but I have written for newspapers and I'm a blogger editing my own blog. And I prefer blogs over the press because they are more flexible. If nothing happens there is no point in publishing another issue with the whole jamboree of sections only because another week is over. If more than one thing happens over the week it can be reported as it happens. A blog always has a deadline and it is you to decide whether you finish your report or not. Very strange idea to write a newspaper in a wiki and to have an editor-in-chief for that, anyway. I never understood how this could come about.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We've actually considered this in the past but dismissed it as unworkable. Many of our readers come from the talk page messages we send around the Wikimedia world, and they don't want to be spammed multiple times per week. Having a single edition allows up to do it all at once! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

News and notes: Wikipedia article published in peer-reviewed journal; Wikipedia in education (6,068 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-10-01

Discuss this story

• The work done by James and others to advance the cause of medicine through Wikipedia is very laudable. None other than the Duke of Manchester has been promoting awareness of this initiative, and it is clear that the Duke in question has been expressing their views on this elsewhere for a long time. It is not quite clear why the Duke would not now broaden their enthusiasm to include contributing to Wikipedia as well, but perhaps we shall find out? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• I read "Online Medicine‌'s external peer-review". Is it not "Open Medicine‌'s external peer-review" ? Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  Fixed that blooper; thanks Cantons. Tony (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• The journal credits the images to Commons, but doesn't the attribution need to be to the specific author? czar ♔ 18:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  This version provides links [1]. I have emailed them to correct the other version already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd also be curious to know what kinds of structure/style changes were needed in the reformatting—could be a useful reflection piece for the rest of the community interested in this type of publishing. czar ♔ 18:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• They wanted more complicated language to be used. Most of the rest of the changes were combined into Wikipedia. One can see it here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I had seen that, but I was under the impression that there were changes between what I see on Wikipedia and what was published in the journal, no? Are there any content differences between the two at the moment? czar ♔ 20:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes the published version has used more complicated language than the Wikipedia version dose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, so to my original comment, I'd be interested in knowing what exactly is more complicated about it, if such a piece were to be written czar ♔ 23:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• What about contributors to the page that are not listed as authors on the paper? I didn't do an exhaustive survey, but it did look like there were some minor contributions by editors not among the paper's authors. Also, I just wanted to link to PLOS Computational Biology's Topic Pages. It's a similar program -- I'm sure the authors of this article know about it, but many readers probably don't. Klortho (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • They are listed as contributors in the paper with a link. There is a certain not set in stone bar for authorship below which one is no longer an author. Was aware of the computation bio work. These articles were written off wiki than added to wiki rather than written on wiki and published in a journal from my understanding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins

• Looks like the nomination for Admin process could benefit from searching out good candidates rather than relying on the dwindling number of self-noms. SFB 23:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

MfD template

• Why is there an MfD template, linking to a nonexistent deletion discussion, on this page? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi הסרפד, that would be because someone is going on a deletion rampage of quotation templates. You may voice your thoughts here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Animals, farms, forests, USDA? It must be WikiProject Agriculture (910 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-10-01

Discuss this story

What does USDA mean? Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 22:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't you have an encyclopedia at your disposal? U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 22:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

USDA. ? raised in title, but not answered or defined. WP:SYSTEMIC. Widefox; talk 08:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)