It is possible they have used that text from someone else who has taken it from Wikipedia. I sometimes find this in the line of work I do, where people submit information on the items they submit to us (with no indication of where this information has come from), and I then double-check and sometimes find they have copied direct from Wikipedia. It is how information can spread, sometimes. In this case, of course, you would expect the curators of the NPG to do their own research. One thing you (Scott) would need to check is precisely where the sentences in the lead of the article came from and when they were written.
I've been flicking forward from the initial version of the article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Michael_Wright&oldid=1803...
It is clear that the current lead emerges gradually over time, with changes in wording over time. You would need to identify the point in times at which the word structure of the current sentences emerge and who wrote them. Given that others have contributed to this article, you would need to be sure that they did not contribute to the wording of the copied text. If they did contribute, you would need to work together with them on what action (if any) to take.
Carcharoth
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
After the confrontation between Derrick Coetzee and the National Portrait Gallery, I thought people would enjoy this irony.
I wandered on to this page of theirs on John Michael Wright:
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?search=sa&LinkID=mp0... &role=art&wPage=0
Hm, that description of Wright sounds familiar I though. Unsurprising really, since *I* wrote it.
It is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michael_Wright which is mainly my work.
Of course, the only note on the page is C National Portrait Gallery, London 2011. No mention of Wikipedia on CC licence unless I've missed it.
Which means, they are engaged in intellectual theft. Or have I missed something?
Can I sue them? And they seem to have taken other work from Wikipedia. I wonder if this is quite deliberate.
Scott
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l