[Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux

David Goodman dgoodmanny at gmail.com
Sun Oct 17 04:11:12 UTC 2010

What is inexcusable, is that the precise parts that sere copied from
the particular sources are not in general indicated. At the first, it
may have been so glaringly obvious that the entire article was copied
that it was not thought necessary. Even now it is often rather easy to
decipher:  the part which  contains unsourced unsupported
generalities, is the part that was copied. (And, to be fair, if it is
confirmed   by the characteristic style of the reference works in
question-- since many other WPedians have entered equally unsupported
text best on their own personal synthesis). It is not always the text
that was entered at the beginning, though it usually is, and can be
seen in purest form in the obscurer academic subjects nobody has since
worked on.

The practices of using sources and not specifically indicating
precisely what comes from which source, is plagiarism.  It is not
excused by public domain. It is not excused by a general warning. the
only way of using it that would be acceptable in the academic or
publishing world is quotation marks or the equivalent, adjusted as
subsequent edits are made to indicate the specific retained phrases.
(I leave aside the question of whether the synthesis or even the basic
 information can actually be relied on--I know of no branch of
humanities or social science that has remained static over the past
century. )

The current way of using this material meets neither WP:V, nor the
most minimal standards of accuracy.

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.rs> wrote:
> Дана Saturday 16 October 2010 21:15:18 Peter Damian написа:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <WJhonson at aol.com>
>> > IF you don't like what it says, change it.
>> > What really is the point, of pointing out that "Oh gosh we don't have up
>> > to
>> > date articles" when anyone who cares to, can simply edit the article?
>> There is no one able to change it.  It will be the same in a month's time.
> While I agree that there are articles that are impossible to actually change,
> I don't think this is one of them. A meaningful change of this article will
> stay.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list