-----Original Message----- From: Oldak Quill [mailto:oldakquill@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 09:22 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
On 09/04/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You are describing original research. Putting together information you
have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography. But it is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person described, except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you yourself have breathed life into.
Compiling an article from multiple sources is not original research.
I don't see why compiling an article from multiple sources would be original research. It's actually good to do it. It means you've verified your info from more than one source. Original research is when you interpret information and draw conclusion from it, which I didn't do.
Yes, compiling an article from multiple sources is fundamental to article writing. Compiling from a single source tends to be plagiarism.
If we were to adopt Fred's definition of "original research", we'd have to delete every article on Wikipedia that isn't plagiarised or made up.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
My definition of original research was adopted some time ago.
Plagiarism is not using information from a source, but using it and not crediting it. We do have a great deal of plagiarism due to sources not being adequately credited. Copying another work without permission is violation of copyright. Copying without crediting amounts to both violation of copyright and plagiarism. Using the facts in a published biography is acceptable so long as the source is credited, provided significant parts of the original work are not copied.
Fred
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Oldak Quill [mailto:oldakquill@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 09:22 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
On 09/04/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You are describing original research. Putting together information you
have gathered from various sources and creating a sort of biography. But it is a pseudobiography, without substantial reference to the person described, except as they have received incidental media coverage. A golem you yourself have breathed life into.
Compiling an article from multiple sources is not original research.
I don't see why compiling an article from multiple sources would be original research. It's actually good to do it. It means you've verified your info from more than one source. Original research is when you interpret information and draw conclusion from it, which I didn't do.
Yes, compiling an article from multiple sources is fundamental to article writing. Compiling from a single source tends to be plagiarism.
If we were to adopt Fred's definition of "original research", we'd have to delete every article on Wikipedia that isn't plagiarised or made up.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
My definition of original research was adopted some time ago.
Plagiarism is not using information from a source, but using it and not crediting it. We do have a great deal of plagiarism due to sources not being adequately credited. Copying another work without permission is violation of copyright. Copying without crediting amounts to both violation of copyright and plagiarism. Using the facts in a published biography is acceptable so long as the source is credited, provided significant parts of the original work are not copied.
Plagiarism is masquerading another's ideas as your own. Using a single source almost always leads to this situation (unless you creatively reinterpret the single source (==original research!)). You can be plagiaristic while crediting the work you're plagiarising - depends how the referencing is done.
If I were to restate a philosopher's critique without incorporating other critiques or constantly reminding the reader that the critique is not my own (e.g. "Dennett then goes on to state..."), I risk plagiarism. This is the case even if I reference the philosopher (here Dennett) at the end of the essay.
It's all related to the issue of Sec. 230 reform. The Courts have ruled Sec. 230 was intended to encourage internal, self regulation. An opt-out policy is exactly that--self regulation. In the absence of self-regulation, there will be a Mothers Against Defamatory Dissemination (MADD) style lobbying movement to force rewriting the Law; and the Congress people who write the Law will grow tired of responding to allegations they are pedophiles & holocaust deniers.
So it's a simple question: the industry either self-regulates, or the government will self-regulate you on your behalf.