About the plagiarism issue, there's nothing wrong with taking information wholesale if 1) it's not copyvio 2) it's encylopedic and suits the encylopedic context. I personally think that if anyone finds their text on Wikipedia and it was freely licensed or public domain, they wouldn't mind anyway, as long as it was being used well (that's why they released it under free license/public domain, no?), the only problem would be quality and copyediting for language, which can be fixed easily. After all, we do take things wholesale (with copyediting here and there) from the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica....and no doubt the article will evolve after that. If anything, it seems all the policies are sufficient. Copyright, manual of style, reference to sources, and being encylopedic. There's no need for a "plagiarism" guideline. If anything, any problems with plagiarism violates one these issues. If they don't (ie. like 1911 Britannica), then I see no problem.
Natalinasmpf
On 7/19/05, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
About the plagiarism issue, there's nothing wrong with taking information wholesale if 1) it's not copyvio 2) it's encylopedic and suits the encylopedic context. I personally think that if anyone finds their text on Wikipedia and it was freely licensed or public domain, they wouldn't mind anyway, as long as it was being used well (that's why they released it under free license/public domain, no?), the only problem would be quality and copyediting for language, which can be fixed easily. After all, we do take things wholesale (with copyediting here and there) from the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica....and no doubt the article will evolve after that. If anything, it seems all the policies are sufficient. Copyright, manual of style, reference to sources, and being encylopedic. There's no need for a "plagiarism" guideline. If anything, any problems with plagiarism violates one these issues. If they don't (ie. like 1911 Britannica), then I see no problem.
Natalinasmpf
We cite our source (or should) when 1911 EB is used. Similarly, even if there's no legal problem using stuff wholesale from somewhere, it may be plagiarism to not attribute the source (as well as not being in line with the Wikipedia guideline for citing sources).
It's important the distinction of plagiarism is made - even if an existing policy such as the citing sources one is just amended to have a more serious and major tone wrt. plagiarism. In fact, at the most crude, the policy page could be renamed "Wikipedia:Cite your sources, don't plagiarise".
The weight given to discouraging plagiarism should be increased, as it does impact on how seriously Wikipedia is taken, how reputable we are, and the potential for irate people to take legal action (*even* in the cases where they have no grounds - people can get like that when their work isn't acknowledged, even if it isn't absolutely copied directly)
Zoney
On 7/19/05, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
The weight given to discouraging plagiarism should be increased, as it does impact on how seriously Wikipedia is taken, how reputable we are, and the potential for irate people to take legal action (*even* in the cases where they have no grounds - people can get like that when their work isn't acknowledged, even if it isn't absolutely copied directly).
Spot on! If we wink at wholesale copying of material without attribution, we are encouraging lazy editors and disgruntled third parties. At the very least, we should include the source as a link, and I think it would be good policy to tell whoever was the original source of the material that we think it is good enough for WP and we would be honoured if they would become an editor in their turn.
Why piss people off, when you can get them on side?
This is a good example of why we need a Wikipedia:Plagiarism page and policy. Since the 1911 Encyclopedia is in the public domain it may simply be copied as it is not a copyright violation to do so. But should I consult the current Britannica regarding, say Liebnitz, I may find some important information which is not in the 1911 edition. For the sake of an example, suppose it is his theory of comedy... If I then write something in the Wikipedia article about Liebnitz's theory of comedy I should credit Encyclopaedia Britannica. (Although more likely I would take the info in Britannica as a clue to do some independent research, the results of which I would then cite.) Even with an article using material from the 1911 edition, if it is not cited as the source, there is plagiarism. This confabulation of plagiarism and copyright violation is why we need a page which clearly explains plagiarism and our policy regarding it.
Fred
On Jul 18, 2005, at 7:21 PM, SCO Estmort wrote:
About the plagiarism issue, there's nothing wrong with taking information wholesale if 1) it's not copyvio 2) it's encylopedic and suits the encylopedic context. I personally think that if anyone finds their text on Wikipedia and it was freely licensed or public domain, they wouldn't mind anyway, as long as it was being used well (that's why they released it under free license/public domain, no?), the only problem would be quality and copyediting for language, which can be fixed easily. After all, we do take things wholesale (with copyediting here and there) from the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica....and no doubt the article will evolve after that. If anything, it seems all the policies are sufficient. Copyright, manual of style, reference to sources, and being encylopedic. There's no need for a "plagiarism" guideline. If anything, any problems with plagiarism violates one these issues. If they don't (ie. like 1911 Britannica), then I see no problem.
Natalinasmpf _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l