I don't think you have this right. Both CITE and plagiarism refers to facts or assertions. If the language is identical or nearly so there may also be a copyright violation. To use facts from any source without citing the source is plagiarism. Since Wikipedia requires that all information used be drawn from a reputable source any information included in Wikipedia for which no source is cited either technically violates the requirement that it be from a reputable source or that its source be cited. Of course, citing the source for common information makes no sense and is an exception.
Fred
On Jul 20, 2005, at 1:38 PM, Geoff Burling wrote:
Well, I beg to differ. As I pointed out in another email, adding plagiarised content to Wikipedia can be understood as taking written material someone owns & releases it under the GFDL or Creative Commons without first consulting the author or owner.
Now plagiarism is a very specific situation that is related to CITE, but I do not feel is identical to it. CITE refers to the facts or assertions in an article; plagiarism refers to the language. And if one editor reuses text in a Wikipedia article that is similar enough to its unattributed source that a Google search can reasonably identify it, then the question of a copyright infringement ensues.
And although the usual defence against a copyright infringement is to invoke "fair use", because no one recognizes plagiarism as fair use it therefore should be treated as a copyright violation -- unless the editor responsible properly adds cites/references either at the time of the edit -- or in a reasonably short period afterwards.
In short, plagiarism should be treated as a copyright violation, & should be explicitly covered in our policies under copyright. Does this seem reasonable to everyone?
***NOTE***: I will interpret silence as consent, & if no one objects, submit this as a proposed Wikipedia Policy.
Geoff