SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) |
→Morality or legality?: I think that the emphasis in the nutshell should be on copyright and not plagiarism. Hence I support Fifelfoo's position. |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
:::A free '''encyclopaedia''' that anyone can edit. We're not the free chapbook that anyone can edit. That's the basis of the morality here—the bad conduct is bad conduct against encyclopaedism, not (for example) personal attacks which is bad conduct because it breaks down the editorial process. If the issue is "what is plagiarism" that is the answer. Close paraphrase is generally plagiarism, but not all plagiarisms are close paraphrase. Close paraphrase as plagiarism is only problematic when it is wide-spread, ie: it was a pattern of encyclopaedic disruption from an editor. Hell, in my article for the MILHIST newspaper, I found close paraphrase by accident in the work of a brilliant editor. One problem is that in-text attribution (of the appropriate kind) doesn't overcome the immorality of close paraphrase. Saying this in an article, "To closely paraphrase the Wikipedia edit screen, "Do submit only cyclopaedic data which may be checked against off-wiki material. Do keep a non-partisan viewpoint. (en.wikipedia (2012) ''Edit screen'')" and yet it is still offensive because I am not presenting original encyclopaedic work (apart from the mangled language). Plagiarism is about non-attribution and deceit. Close paraphrase is about non-attribution, deceit, and failure to present an original expression. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 04:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC) |
:::A free '''encyclopaedia''' that anyone can edit. We're not the free chapbook that anyone can edit. That's the basis of the morality here—the bad conduct is bad conduct against encyclopaedism, not (for example) personal attacks which is bad conduct because it breaks down the editorial process. If the issue is "what is plagiarism" that is the answer. Close paraphrase is generally plagiarism, but not all plagiarisms are close paraphrase. Close paraphrase as plagiarism is only problematic when it is wide-spread, ie: it was a pattern of encyclopaedic disruption from an editor. Hell, in my article for the MILHIST newspaper, I found close paraphrase by accident in the work of a brilliant editor. One problem is that in-text attribution (of the appropriate kind) doesn't overcome the immorality of close paraphrase. Saying this in an article, "To closely paraphrase the Wikipedia edit screen, "Do submit only cyclopaedic data which may be checked against off-wiki material. Do keep a non-partisan viewpoint. (en.wikipedia (2012) ''Edit screen'')" and yet it is still offensive because I am not presenting original encyclopaedic work (apart from the mangled language). Plagiarism is about non-attribution and deceit. Close paraphrase is about non-attribution, deceit, and failure to present an original expression. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 04:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
I think that the emphasis in the nutshell should be on copyright and not plagiarism. Hence I support Fifelfoo's position. -- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 09:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
This has been discussed many times See [[Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Clarification of what "with very few changes" means]] for a list of some sections on this subject. As discussed in the archives I think it is advantageous to quote and summarise as a style issue rather than using close paraphrasing (how do I know when someone writes {{green|Sir Robert Armstrong said he told the truth}} is a summary of {{green|Sir Robert Armstrong said he was "economical with the truth"}} rather than a unquoted statement of "[I] told the truth"? -- such a nuance is lost in the wash of close paraphrasing). I think that that close paraphrasing is creating so many problems that we should go back to information from copyrighted sources either be summarised or quoted (and discourage close paraphrasing). |
|||
I give two examples in [[Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Clarification of what "with very few changes" means|the section I mentioned previosly]] where collateral damage over close paraphrasing has affected this project. So while a talented writer like SV never makes a mistake and violates copyright when close paraphrasing, it is far too easy for many editors to create copyright problems, and so in the interests of the project, I think it better if close paraphrasing is discouraged in favour of summary and quotation. -- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 09:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:53, 13 July 2012
Essays High‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Large-scale constructs
See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Large-scale constructs.
Macmillan Co. v. King
This century old case is not very relevant. a) It was written long before the modern fair use rules were adopted. b) it deals with a tutor who made a condensed version of a two-volume 1000-page textbook so that students taking the course could learn the material without buying the book. The judge said it "resulted in an appropriation by him of the author's ideas and language more� extensive than the copyright law permits." He found that the notes "constitute 'versions' of substantial portions of the book.' decision. Rjensen (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Research paper on generating non-close paraphrases of text from Wikipedia
Not sure whether it could ever contribute to alleviating the problem, but it seems worthwhile to mention this recent research paper which proposes a method "to collect good-quality paraphrases in a cost-effective manner" which "maximizes the lexical divergence between an original sentence s and its valid paraphrases [i.e. finding the least close paraphrase which still has about the same meaning] by running a sequence of paraphrasing jobs carried out by a crowd of non-expert workers", demonstrating it on sentences taken from Wikipedia. As a sample, two of the "good" examples (p2663):
- In the face of demand for higher fuel efficiency and falling sales of minivans, Ford moved to introduce a range of new vehicles, including ”Crossover SUVs” built on unibody car platforms, rather than more body-on-frame chassis.
became
- Ford’s introduction of a new range of vehicles (like ”Crossover SUVs”) that were built on unibody car platforms instead of the body-on-frame chassis, was in response to both plunging minivans sales and demands for greater fuel efficiency.
and
- The Gates of Alexander was a legendary barrier supposedly built by Alexander the Great in the Caucasus to keep the uncivilized barbarians of the north (typically associated with Gog and Magog) from invading the land to the south.
became
- To prevent the uncivilized barbarians from the north (who were typically associated with Gog and Magog) from overrunning the land to the south, Alexander the Great is thought to have built, in the Caucasus, the legendary barrier referred to as the Gates of Alexander.
(Found during the preparation of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter although I don't know whether we will cover the paper there.)
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
How to section
Like others I use and refer to this and its relatives ([quotefarm] (essay), [copyvio] (policy), [copyright] (policy), [plagiarism] (guideline), [copypaste] (infopage)). I do have one observation. The RFC below probably isn't the right place for feedback comments, so it gets its own section.
The how to examples, after dispensing advice to just stick to the material facts, concentrate on advising use of multiple sources. That's all well and good where multiple sources exist on what's being written about. Unfortunately many topics or certainly aspects of topics don't have that advantage. The article subject itself nonetheless sufficiently passes notability guidelines.
It's common with niche topics or aspects of them especially, to find one source that covers something. In articles about smaller topics, there may be one source that has a little about one aspect, another source only has a little about a completely different aspect and so forth. As the editor must piece together single sources on disparate aspects throughout the article or section it's inevitable they run into difficulties.
If they fall back to quoting widely, they risk the page becoming a quotefarm, a copyright violation. There may not be another source that addresses that aspect. They come up against obstacles like, and particularly when dealing with small parts of source text, how there's only so many ways to rewrite a small sentence/paragraph or the passage uses technical terms which can make the task harder, etc. The subject used in the how to examples is slave narratives of the Federal Writers' Project, a widely-studied area. It's lovely to have it as an example I think, but hard to apply it to narrower topics. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Or another way to look at it is that for whatever the subject is, it turns out that only one other person ever anywhere chose to take a decent and scholarly interest, spent years of their life carefully researching a subject, did all the work of making it publishable - and now rather than repay them for the work, we need better reasons to give it away for free? It is of course more complicated than that, but I've seen the situation arise so many many times, when there is just the one good source, what "right" do we have to appropriate the work in order to have a decent Wikipedia article? Franamax (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Should this be a guideline ?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- No consensus. Firstly, an RFC is an appropriate venue to gauge community consensus, and the community certainly provided a variety of arguments most of which were strong. The discussion below certainly supports the {{infopage}} labelling, which is described in Wikipedia:Policy as being equivalent to an essay in stringency of development of structure. But the community would only go so far as to support doing so with significant cleaning and harmonisation of this page. Some arguments put were unfortunately specious, such as making a WP:CREEP argument with no content other than the undesirability of creep in general. The quality of such arguments ought to be improved by providing specificity on why CREEP is specifically undesirable in this case. For example, other editors made strong and specific arguments that the current status of this document suits its position and function within a hierarchy of documents discussing appropriate editing. While editors certainly agree that the material contained within this document is worthy, they simultaneously agree that it is unpolished. Some arguments go further and put that the document can never be sufficiently polished to meet standards of more clearly enumerated documents on editing behaviour as the topic covered is fundamentally incapable of being ennumerated. While editors made strong arguments regarding the worth of this document, and its impact and usefulness; these arguments were countered by equally strong arguments basically putting that an essay is a worthy document to convey information of high impact and usefulness. Finally, a number of editors noted that the document resembles the actual living consensus of the encyclopaedic community in this terrain, a point worth considering as editors improve this document and consider whether to proceed towards policy, guideline, infopage or essay status. (Thank you for your wonderful and clearly put arguments) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing be a guideline rather than an essay? Dpmuk (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes: this is an important and high-impact topic, and should be more widely recognized. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - it should be seen as an official supplement to our copyvio policy. Thanks Dpmuk for paying enough attention to my suggestion to start this RfC. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure there are a few others like me who've just assumed that this is a guideline! This definitely needs to be part of our copyvio policy/guideline set. —SpacemanSpiff 19:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - per Nikkimaria. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it's central copyvio issue that desperately needs to be more recognized. The essay has been worked over and refined by several editors and has been stable for quite a while now. Siawase (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes – definitely. Long overdue and very necessary, especially given the scale of the problem (I clerk at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.) As per Siawase, this "essay" has been carefully written and refined by several editors with great expertise in this area, most notably Moonriddengirl and Dcoetzee, and has been stable for quite some time. Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose at this time, and possibly always, given the advisory nature of the material. A guideline needs to set out clear parameters on what is covered and what is not, how situations should be handled, etc. I'm not reading the necessary focus in what is currently here. It's certainly part of my standard trio ("please review our policy on [copyright], our guideline on [plagiarism] and our essay on [close paraphrasing]"), the concept is highly relevant - but this doesn't read to me like a guideline. After some clause-by-clause review maybe, but not now. Franamax (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I think we need a guideline. If this document could be improved, I'd be all for improving it. That said, I routinely use it in spite of its essay status. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think anyone disagrees that a close paraphrase can be considered a copyright violation. I think the issue is more about when does content become a close paraphrase. My alternative suggestion to this essay becoming a guideline is that we make it clear at WP:Copyright violations that close paraphrasing can count as a copyright violation, and that this essay is used to help determine when content is or is not a close paraphrase. If my alternative suggestion is not accepted by the community consensus, then I would accept the primary proposal that this essay be turned into a guideline. Singularity42 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's too much in flux. It's a mistake to think that because avoiding close-paraphrasing is important therefore this page ought to be given elevated status. Between this Talk page and WT:Plagiarism there's ongoing confusion about what/when things should be addressed under that page, versus under this. There are sections above about modifying the examples and their presentation. Once a brief definition has been given, examples are probably the most important part of this document, essential to training editors how to self-avoid the problem as well as being as a resource to point others to. A proposed-guideline needs to be stable (settled), clear, concise and effective. The proposed-guideline—not merely the behaviour or acts it prohibits—should be supported by broad consensus agreement. When fundamental unresolved issues on its content exist, it can't be said to be stable or have consensus on its efficacy. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. the guideline at present does not help an editor tell what is and what is not "too close". There is an ambiguity: "too close" to the original words (bad) and "too close to the original ideas" (good). I have trouble with section 4's statement "in many cases close paraphrasing of a non-free copyrighted source is likely to be an infringement of the copyright of the source." Does that also mean "in many cases close paraphrasing of a non-free copyrighted source is likely to NOT be an infringement of the copyright of the source." There are no citations to actual copyright legal cases even though section 4 says. "Wikipedia's primary concern is with the legal constraints imposed by copyright law". That apparently means fair use law, but the four criteria for legal fair use are not even mentioned. Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if it would help to incorporate some of the language from meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/Close Paraphrasing? It was created by a legal intern with the Legal & Community Advocacy department on community request (not mine!) to the WMF. It's dually licensed, just like all of our content. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I recommend no. It starts off "Yes. Among other rights, copyright law grants a copyright owner exclusive control over any unauthorized copying of the copyrighted work." that's false the law does NOT say that. it says "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights. section 106 Subject to sections 107 is fair use and that's central. Section 107 says "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." section 107. Rjensen (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is kind of a wonky sentence. :) "exclusive control over any unauthorized copying" - what does that even mean? Maybe she meant something more like "exclusive right to authorize copying"? (Which still wouldn't mention the exclusions, but at least would make sense.) I have to admit I'd glossed over that one in reading the document. However, we don't have to take all of the language. There could be valuable content to be mined - she does discuss fair use -- and there is case law cited if, unfortunately, not linked. It could be worth looking at those cases to see how directly they apply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes - But it does need a little work to make it conform to the style of other guidelines. It covers behavior that isn't the same as wholesale infringement yet still has legal ramifications as it is a form of copyright infringement. It should be elevated to a guideline to allow a better understanding of the importance of the issue, and facilitate enforcement of copyright problems in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes Per Dennis Brown. Dusty777 23:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- 'Comment: I got the RfC bot notice. I was not aware of this essay or the content guideline Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I don't have a strong opinion against making it a guideline as an extension of Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I don't know if that will help solve the problem I do run into too often when I check references in some new article and find people just copied text word for word the source. (Usually way after it happened and not worth checking who did it.) Perhaps more publicity about these guidelines/essays is in order. CarolMooreDC 01:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not yet. Nikkimaria asked me to comment. At this stage in the project life cycle it will be extremely difficult to make a major change such as this, and a half-baked attempt will make it that much harder. A few random thoughts:
- The essay needs to be carefully reviewed and adjusted to ensure that it is consistent with other policies and guidelines. For example, the following statement in the lead is incorrect: "Wikipedia's copyright policy ... forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying information directly from other sources". Inaccuracies and inconsistencies such as this will be pounced upon by those opposed to promotion.
- A guideline must carefully steer clear of the law-versus-morals debate. For every editor that passionately feels that close paraphrasing is morally wrong, there is another that feels that attempts to impose moral standards beyond those required by the law may lead to a Taliban-like form of self-censorship that could be extremely disruptive to the project. There are hints in the essay that it leans towards the "moral" side of this debate.
- The section on where close paraphrasing is permitted needs to be expanded. For example, a statement like, "Smith found the waterfalls both stunning and inspiring" may be a sensible alternative to a direct quotation. It may be the only option when the source says, "In a letter to his sister, Smith said he found the waterfalls both stunning and inspiring". Placing the key words in quotes as, "Smith found the waterfalls both 'stunning' and 'inspiring'" would make Fowler turn in his grave.
- In general, as in the example above, a guideline should make it much easier to distinguish the many cases where close paraphrasing is correct, or at least fully acceptable, from the many other cases where it is not acceptable at all. In its present form the essay is decidedly confused.
- A guideline should make it clear that the problem arises whenever creative expression is copied, and cannot by fixed by simply shuffling word sequence and substituting synonyms. The following example from Salinger v. Random House. 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir.1987), found to be an infringement, should be dissected in detail:
- (Source) He looks to me like a guy who makes his wife keep a scrapbook for him.
- (Close paraphrase) [Salinger] had fingered [Wilkie] as the sort of fellow who makes his wife keep an album of press clippings.
- A guideline would definitely be useful, but this essay is not yet ready for prime time. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- No: We already have a copyright policy. Anything that needs to be said about this topic that needs to be binding should be said there. Also, an RfC is not the proper venue for guideline proposals; use
{{Proposal}}
and post to WP:VP/PR next time. I also have to agree with Aymatth2 that this essay leans toward moralizing instead of simply sticking to the applicable law (and disagree that a new guideline on this would be helpful, rather than ensuring the topic is covered by existing policy). Basically, something like this cannot be written accurately by someone who is not an attorney specializing in intellectual property. Wikimedia Foundation's own legal counsel keep a close eye on WP:COPYRIGHT, so that would again be the most appropriate place to cover this, to the extent that it needs to be covered. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 17:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)- With respect to your statement that "an RfC is not the proper venue for guideline proposals; use
{{Proposal}}
and post to WP:VP/PR next time" I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals, which is itself a policy, states "Most commonly, editors use a Request for comments (RfC) to determine consensus for a newly proposed policy or guideline, via the {{rfc|policy}} tag." Dpmuk (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)- Not to mix my hats, but "Wikimedia Foundation's own legal counsel keep a close eye on WP:COPYRIGHT"? What do you mean? I work for those attorneys, and I'm pretty sure they don't keep an eye on it at all. :/ Community policies are left to community to develop, although I don't doubt that if the community tried to make sweeping changes to one of our legal policies the Foundation would be asked by somebody to weigh in. (At legalquestionswikimedia.org, maybe. <-shameless plug, new address>) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- With respect to your statement that "an RfC is not the proper venue for guideline proposals; use
- Guideline maybe, but not policy - And it would need to be made clear that this guideline in no way supercedes copyright policy, and further that this guideline should be edited to address the concerns above so as to keep it in line with the extant policy (not to mention various laws). If this is not - or cannot - be done, then oppose. - jc37 23:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- No. Sure, close paraphrasing is an issue, but this essay is poorly written and not clearly defined. In my opinion, "close" in this regard cannot be unilaterally defined. What equates to close paraphrasing for one person, editor, and admin is not the same across the board. We need consistency, but it will never happen with this essay. Focus on what works. This doesn't. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- If "close" in your opinion cannot be unilaterally defined, how would you propose consistently offering guidance on close paraphrase? Since it is a matter of legal compliance, we can't pretend there isn't a necessary standard to which we must adhere. Regardless of what happens to this essay, too closely following your source is already against policy at WP:C. Providing people information on what following too closely means and how to avoid it seems like a good idea, since people have been blocked for this very thing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Close" paraphrasing has been defined by various courts. One definition is that it copies the "association, presentation, and combination of the ideas and thought which go to make up the literary composition." That is, much more than just the wording. But also less, because using obvious words to state facts does not count as a copy. I am sure the Wikipedia legal counsel could give us their preferred definition for this essay. I suspect the lawyers would prefer to keep advice and examples down at the essay level, with the policy and guidelines limited to the legal minimum. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's the difference between an essay and a guideline. An essay can talk in general terms, use examples, etc. ro give advice, whereas a guideline would need to be more prescriptive (or more clearly descriptive I guess). Cindamuse is right in that there will always be cases where reasonable people do differ on whether something is or is not a close paraphrase, so IMO a guideline would need to spell out how a consensus decision can be reached, whereas an essay doesn't need that level of detail. And actually, reading the "Addressing" section just now, if it's not a copyright problem, why would we be tagging it as a close paraphrase anyway (just asking)? Franamax (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- We already have a guideline, which is Wikipedia:Plagiarism, and a policy, which is Wikipedia:Copyrights. The rules we already have are correctly arranged, with copyright (as a legal issue) set up as policy and plagiarism (as an academic discourtesy) set up as a guideline. This content is very worthwhile, but it's not necessary to have a separate rule about close paraphrasing when we can move the content into our two existing rules instead.
Basically, I'm saying this content should be a guideline but not a separate guideline.—S Marshall T/C 19:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, as rule creep. What needs to be said to observe copyright as a legal matter (i.e., no excessive quotations or near-quotations) can be said briefly in the copyright policy. Encouraging editors to depart as far as possible from the source's wording can also be counterproductive, because changes in wording can easily distort the source's meaning, which we must avoid as a matter of factual correctness and per WP:NOR. When in doubt, I prefer that we err on the side of too-close paraphrasing (if properly attributed!) rather than on the side of imprecise or awkward wording. Sandstein 17:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Mild oppose. As with others who have opposed here, I certainly agree that it is important to spell out when paraphrasing is or is not acceptable. And I'm in favor of doing more to send that message, loud and clear. My concern, however, is that the essay in its present form has a lot of how-to advice that really isn't appropriate to a guideline, more consistent with an essay. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with everything that Sandstein says above. In addition, this will tend to create a whipsaw which would harm the project: if a text is close to sources then it's close paraphrasing; if it departs from the sources too far then it's OR. Warden (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nothing like a couple more thousand words of written policy to make WP even more difficult for newcomers. We've survived this long without this bloated essay as an official guideline... Carrite (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Like Carrite above, I think we already have a proliferation of guidelines and policies. We already have WP:COPYVIO and WP:Plagiarism, which address "close paraphrasing". I would be supportive of content changes within those policies in the spirit of what TransporterMan proposes below. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose This essay is just in too crude a state to become a policy. I agree with the avoidance of plagiarism via close paraphrasing, but the examples are too sparse for me to apply this policy to a given alleged incident and decide if the paraphrasing is too close. Often a sentence in an article contains facts: the rivers in a continent, the new elements a scientist discovered, the components of a dynamo, the schools a person attended, the main exports of a country, the films a producer made, the teams a pro sportsman played for. It would be too easy to jump on someone for "excessively close paraphrasing" if her Wikipedia edit included such facts in a logical or chronological order as stated in the reference. The defense mentioned in the essay that "there are only so many ways to say some things" is unlikely to satisfy those who accuse others of plagiarism. It seems to fall back on the old definition of obscenity: "I know it when I see it," when it is something less egregious than cut and paste with a couple of words changed. Come back when you can provide something like a bright-line test which I can apply to someone's writing. Alternatively, the essay/guideline/policy could provide an extensive set of examples: "Original text, "A" which is just barely too close a paraphrase close, "B" is just original enough to satisfy the policy, when both are variations on the original text. The present two examples are not sufficient.This proposed policy could be used to harass productive editors who create and improve articles, when someone gets into an editing dispute with them, just on the basis of "It's too close because I say it's too close." Edison (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per S Marshall. We should retain the 3-tier document hierarchy: top-level policies (WP:Copyright); Detailed guidelines (WP:Plagiarism); and then informal essays (WP:Close paraphrasing). Essays, like this one, are a good home for tons of example and - sometimes - humor. On the other hand, if there are couple of important tidbits in this essay, they should be moved into the WP:Close paraphrasing guideline. --Noleander (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Proposal by TransporterMan
What is lacking is that Wikipedia:Copyrights never says that close paraphrasing — using that term — is a copyright violation unless done with attribution in a fair-use manner. The closest it comes is in the WP:COPYOTHERS section, when it says,The Copyright FAQ then does little more than repeat the same thing. I would propose changing the quoted language toNote that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.) However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference.
With that in place to clearly define policy, I would then recommend upgrading this page to a {{infopage}} rather than a guideline, which would mean that it need not be quite as precise as a policy or guideline.... so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (Following the source too closely is called [[WP:PARAPHRASE|close paraphrasing]].) ...
Finally, just in passing, let me note that the Plagiarism guideline only indirectly has anything to do with copyright issues; plagiarism is largely an ethical issue, copyright is largely a legal issue. The plagiarism article uses the term "close paraphrase" correctly but in an unfortunate manner in that if skimmed or read carelessly it can be read to imply (though it says otherwise, if you read all the way through it) that close paraphrasing is acceptable (which, indeed, it is with proper attribution in fair-use size chunks, but so is direct copying with ditto in ditto).
Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps the problem is that this essay is too broad in scope and should be split. I see two very different topics:
- The Rules: What "close paraphrasing" means, and when it is encouraged / allowed / discouraged / forbidden
- How To: Avoid, detect, deal with inappropriate close paraphrasing
- I am not sure "The Rules" should be a separate article. I would not merge them into WP:Plagiarism since the only connection is that paraphrasing is a form of copying, so should be properly attributed. The Rules may be better merged into Wikipedia:Copyrights, or possibly made into a sub-page of some sort within the Wikipedia:Copyrights family. The "How To" article should reference "The Rules" with a very short summary to avoid forking. Then it could be expanded with a lot more examples. An Infopage seems reasonable. A possible sequence:
- Ask for consensus on the Wikipedia:Copyrights page to open a new section in the policy statement discussing close paraphrasing, holding "The Rules"
- Assuming agreement, implement the new section and let it stabilize
- Cut that material out of this essay, replacing with a very short summary and a pointer to the new Wikipedia:Copyrights section
- Upgrade this essay to an infopage
- Aymatth2 (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I support TransporterMan's proposal, for similar reasons to what's in my initial comment in this RFC. Singularity42 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea. Though I think it should be noted somewhere that several editors (as I read on this page) felt that the page and its wording could use some cleanup for clarity and accuracy. - jc37 17:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Close paraphrase is already a prohibited form of copyright violation under existing guidelines and practice, as Moodriddengirl etc. can attest. Having an essay which explains close paraphrase to those unclear on the concept which can be pointed to is useful. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - The essay is (and, because of its nature, will probably always be) quite ambiguous. There is no definitive way to determine what is and is not close paraphrasing and, while it is good advice for editors to follow, making it a guidelines suggests some level of enforcability. It is a good essay and good advice to follow, but need to be given the authority of being a guideline. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- It would be a mistake for contributors to think that it is not already enforced. People are blocked for persistent close paraphrasing and have been for years. Likewise, people are blocked for violating guidelines and policies related to misuse of non-free media content, even though these are also ambiguous. It would be awesome if copyright law were straightforward, but it's not - and we're in the position of having to enforce it anyway. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I like TransporterMan's proposal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Tolerance
Close paraphasing is, by its nature, always going to be quite debatable and tentative. Today in the news, Jimbo is pushing back against a draconian copyright action and has made public statements such as "The internet as a whole must not tolerate censorship in response to mere allegations of copyright infringement." We ought to follow his lead and take a correspondingly lenient and tolerant position. Warden (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Generalizing the circumstances of that case would probably not be advisable. Besides, there's no need for us to "follow his lead" any more than anyone else's. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- They aren't "mere allegations" if we create paraphrasing policy that is too lenient and allows editors to insert violations. I think you are reading too much into the situation Colonel Warden. Gigs (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Jimmy also said, "Copyright is an important institution, serving a beneficial moral and economic purpose." This is a question of jurisdiction, akin to National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. It doesn't change the legal reality that we are governed by a court system that has found close paraphrasing infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- They aren't "mere allegations" if we create paraphrasing policy that is too lenient and allows editors to insert violations. I think you are reading too much into the situation Colonel Warden. Gigs (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a risk that this essay could be seen as teaching editors how to conceal copying. Amateurish attempts to avoid close paraphrasing may also violate moral rights, to the extent that they are protected in the United States, where close paraphrasing would not. The sloppy wording in this essay is dangerous. It is much more important to ensure that editors understand and apply the principles of fair use. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Which particular sloppy wording do you find dangerous in this respect, as applies to moral rights as they exist in the United States? I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- For example, the subsection "Brief indirect quotation of non-free text" is the only part of the essay that discusses acceptable close paraphrasing other than copying of free content or obvious expressions of fact. It says indirect quotation is only allowed when it is brief, is not markedly creative and has in-text attribution, but direct quotation is preferred. Here is an example of a problem that could result:
- The New York Times reports a speech by Senator X with a careful close paraphrase: "The Senator said that Mexicans could never make good American citizens". The essay seems to imply that the preferred way to copy this is "According to the New York Times, 'the Senator said that Mexicans could never make good American citizens'"[39] That is very clumsy, so the editor attempts a loose paraphrase: "The Senator expressed hostility to Mexicans."[39] Wikipedia has misrepresented what the New York Times said and we have defamed the Senator.
- By failing to elaborate the underlying copyright and moral rights principles, and by making an excessively strong case for avoiding close paraphrasing, the essay may create problems that could be avoided with more careful wording and more extensive examples. It is not ready to become a guideline. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe the essay makes an excessively strong case for avoiding close paraphrasing. :) WP:NFCC says, "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method." This is consistent with our approach to fair use images, which are marked to permit reusers from around the world to assess the usage within their local jurisdiction. There is no other way than by using explicit quotation marks to indicate that text is being claimed under fair use. That said, the example you supply is brief, so it's hard for me to imagine how the issue could apply to lengthy text, since we should not be closely paraphrasing that much from a single source anyway; with that example, "According to the New York times, the Senator told attendees at [event] on [date] that Mexicans could never be good citizens of the United States." Brief extent of limited close paraphrase, contextualized and neither inaccurate nor defamatory. It's even avoiding antagonizing those people who would rightly point out that Mexicans are already citizens of America, along with everyone else who shares the continent. :) (Yes, they exist. I've inadvertently offended them myself.) (Note that in no case would Wikipedia have misrepresented or defamed the Senator; the editor who placed the content would have done those things. You may know this, I know, but it's a distinction I try to point out when it arises because I'm concerned that a lot of editors do not understand that they personally are liable for their actions.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- For example, the subsection "Brief indirect quotation of non-free text" is the only part of the essay that discusses acceptable close paraphrasing other than copying of free content or obvious expressions of fact. It says indirect quotation is only allowed when it is brief, is not markedly creative and has in-text attribution, but direct quotation is preferred. Here is an example of a problem that could result:
- I have not explained myself well. I should have made it clear that the example was not part of an article on US immigration, quoting the Senator as an authority, but part of an article on the Senator, trying to accurately depict his views without bowdlerization. The copied material in this case may perhaps be changed slightly, as you suggest, but only slightly. Anything more drastic risks further upsetting Senator X, who may regret making that rash remark, or upsetting the New York Times, which thought carefully about how to paraphrase it. Even after your change, the New York Times could still claim that their expression had been infringed and also mutilated. It may therefore be better to change it less, e.g. do not change "America" to "the United States", and trust to fair use. The fair use case is not rock solid. In theory, Wikipedia should find out what the Senator actually said rather than copying the New York Times paraphrase ...
- Still, this copying problem can be solved, as they all can. That is not the issue. My hypothetical editor goofed up badly because the essay did not give any guidance on dealing with controversial statements. The editor thought a loose paraphrase must be better than a direct quote. That is the larger problem. In general, the essay is far too much about the mechanics of paraphrasing and does not say nearly enough about the principles, particularly about when copying is appropriate and when it is not. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wiki rules on OR forbid the use of unpublished manuscripts. The copyright law I have seen on "close paraphrasing" all involve the use of close paraphrasing of unpublished material. Since this is already forbidden, it seems to me the "close paraphrasing" rules in US law are irrelevant and should not be guidelines to editors. Rjensen (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Still, this copying problem can be solved, as they all can. That is not the issue. My hypothetical editor goofed up badly because the essay did not give any guidance on dealing with controversial statements. The editor thought a loose paraphrase must be better than a direct quote. That is the larger problem. In general, the essay is far too much about the mechanics of paraphrasing and does not say nearly enough about the principles, particularly about when copying is appropriate and when it is not. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- My limited understanding is that US copyright law does not make much distinction between literal copying and paraphrasing, and rarely mentions "close paraphrasing". Crudely stated, if an ordinary reasonable person would consider that there has been copying of the protected expression, and if fair use does not apply, there is an infringement. If the copying is concealed so it cannot be detected, there is no problem. There used to be special rules with unpublished material, connected with the right of first publication, but they were loosened up about twenty years ago.
- The WP rules are a different thing. Wikipedia is very much a derivative work, so using unpublished material is clearly counter to the "Original Research" policy. The term "close paraphrasing" is used in an internal WP sense unconnected with US law. WP policy is more restrictive than US laws perhaps in part so it is less likely that someone cloning WP content in another country will get into trouble, but maybe more because if we set our editors a tough standard that they don't entirely manage to meet, they are likely to still stay within US laws.
- One concern with this essay is that it does not seem to be fully consistent with policies and guidelines. Another is that it combines an attempt at rigorous definitions and rules with a sort of "how to" guide. My main concern is that the lack of explanation of principles and the simplistic rules may encourage editors to do the wrong thing, and thus to compromise the integrity of the project. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Morality or legality?
I've reverted this edit by SV and I would like to open a discussion here, which I briefly touched on in the guideline RFC above. I'm concerned about the reference to plagiarism as distinct from copyright violation. In my time here, I've observed that labeling content as plagiarism and/or editors as plagiarists produces among the worst possible of outcomes. We discussed all this at great length when developing the en:wiki plagiarism guideline and in that context made every effort to push everything possible over to copyvio where the process is much more clinical - simply because it is a much more well-defined process. Our own definition for plagiarism does try to confine itself to copying from "free" sources.
So basically, here is what I think should be discussed: IFF we are talking about a copyrighted source work, then can there ever be a case where we can say that some contribution here based on that source is NOT a copyright violation but is also NOT acceptable for inclusion? This is the lacuna where accusations of plagiarism can arise, and have their maleficent consequences. This is distinct from recognition in our various "audited" (DYK/FA/GA) processes where the recognizers can choose to set whichever rules for acceptance. As a basic tenet of the encyclopedia though, if the contributed material can not be found by reasonable tests to be a copyvio, why should it be excluded? What extra bar does this moral hurdle of "plagiarism" set? Why is that bar justified?
(P.S. If anyone responds with academic definitions of plagiarism, been there :) Franamax (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, the development of Wikipedia's guidelines about plagiarism have been hampered by the attempt to prioritize copyright violation, or to discuss plagiarism in terms of it. And that has caused people to plagiarize without realizing they were doing it. I wasn't even able to get in-text attribution added as a requirement to the verifiability policy, in part because someone who wanted to copy public domain texts turned up to stop it. But the absence of that requirement from V has caused people to plagiarize inadvertently, so it has been very harmful.
- The practice of plagiarism is well understood in academia and in publishing in general; it is intellectual theft, and we should stick to the academic definitions and advice, and not try to reinvent (or ignore) the wheel. Whether it rises on any given occasion to a violation of copyright is a separate (complex, legal) issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see what OR has to do with it, Franamax. If I use an idea or words from John Brown, then I write: "Brown (2009) argues that ..." followed by an inline ref. Not to do that will almost always look like plagiarism (unless the words or ideas are very common). A copyright violation is a completely different animal. It is where I make Brown's copyrighted work available to the public without his permission, and crediting him makes no difference to that. How much I would have to make available is a legal question. We should stop confusing this with plagiarism, which is only about intellectual theft.
- The point again is that academics know what plagiarism is, and there's no reason not to use their definitions and trust their advice regarding how to avoid it. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- But close paraphrasing (and accusations of plagiarism) can extend beyond the scope of your chosen vehicle of in-text attribution, good though it is for sentence-by-sentence work. Close paraphrasing can also involve copying with minimal restatement of the very structure of a work. I don't see how your preferred solution addresses such a situation - or are you saying that is beyond the scope of this essay? Also, if you want to create another essay about WP:Intellectual theft, that may be a better place for you to describe such values. I'm not disagreeing with it, just sayin' I'd like to see the whole text first. :) Franamax (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- If someone is copying the structure of a work entirely, where the whole article rests on one source and the source has been mined extensively, it could constitute copyright violation, which is beyond the scope of this page. It will always depend on the context (length of article, length of source material, how unique the material is, etc). I don't understand your point about intelletual theft: the word for it in this context is plagiarism, so we're going round in circles. My point is that I wish people would (a) stop conflating plagiarism and copyright violation, and/or (b) stop prioritizing the latter. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Plagiarism as I've seen it in consensus practice is reliance upon a source, without appropriate attribution, for quotes, text, paraphrase, novel facts, novel analysis, novel opinion, novel evaluation (weighting), novel organisation or novel structural presentation. It is plagiarism regardless of whether the source legally allows copying or not, or whether moral rights exist at law, because plagiarism is a moral fault against appropriate encyclopaedism. Appropriate attribution may be significantly more strenuous than mere citation, "As Swanson puts it bacon is the perfect food." indicates that while the remainder of the sentence is paraphrase, it relies upon Swanson's work fundamentally for the opinion, rather than the opinion merely being published by Swanson.
- The problem for wikipedia is determining novelty and appropriate levels of attribution. In particular, wikipedians often poorly attribute paraphrase, analysis, opinion, evaluation, organisation and structure.
- Failure to attribute is poor encyclopaedism, as it fails to document our work process, and fails to acknowledge the work of others we rely upon. It is "immoral" as it is poor encyclopaedic work. It is immoral to the point at which the content should be excluded from the encyclopaedia's current edition.
- One of the reasons for the FAC spotchecking upset is that failure to acknowledge the work of others, even when we have the legal right to do so, is immoral encyclopaedism. The depth of upset at believing that we might purvey the unacknowledged work of others as our best work caused that moral crisis. I say that unacknowledged use of others work is so immoral that we should remove the error (by appropriate attribution, editing, or removal of content).
- Close paraphrase is a moral issue separate to the potential for close paraphrases to be copyright violation or plagiarism. A close paraphrase of a free work, appropriately attributed, may be immoral to the extent that as encyclopaedists and an encyclopaedia we ought to purvey our own unique expressions, presentations, and verbal and adjectival judgements.
- Finally I would note that both plagiarism and close paraphrase are deceptive, deceitful and conceal. As an encyclopaedia we make clear, are honest and reveal. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is some good advice in "What Constitutes Plagiarism?" in the Harvard Guide to Using Sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- (after e/c, haven't reviewed new) But this is not about failure to attribute, in those cases it is a clear-cut copyvio or plagio, which we have procedures to correct. This essay is about where the sources are attributed but insufficiently restructured / reworded, or at least if it were to become a guideline it would fill that niche. So what specific definitions are we using, assuming that attribution exists somewhere?
- Much of your response is aspirational, I do agree with it, but can we agree that you are expressing an aspirational view? Wikipedia does not have "moral beacon to the world" among its pillars. Again, no problem with applying further standards to audited stuff, but we should be tempering the message in P/G/E that could be used as a bludgeon by anyone against anyone. Franamax (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is a definition of plagiarism at Wikipedia:Plagiarism for example. It isn't a complex idea. Where to draw the line can be complicated, but in-text attribution is always a solution. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- A free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. We're not the free chapbook that anyone can edit. That's the basis of the morality here—the bad conduct is bad conduct against encyclopaedism, not (for example) personal attacks which is bad conduct because it breaks down the editorial process. If the issue is "what is plagiarism" that is the answer. Close paraphrase is generally plagiarism, but not all plagiarisms are close paraphrase. Close paraphrase as plagiarism is only problematic when it is wide-spread, ie: it was a pattern of encyclopaedic disruption from an editor. Hell, in my article for the MILHIST newspaper, I found close paraphrase by accident in the work of a brilliant editor. One problem is that in-text attribution (of the appropriate kind) doesn't overcome the immorality of close paraphrase. Saying this in an article, "To closely paraphrase the Wikipedia edit screen, "Do submit only cyclopaedic data which may be checked against off-wiki material. Do keep a non-partisan viewpoint. (en.wikipedia (2012) Edit screen)" and yet it is still offensive because I am not presenting original encyclopaedic work (apart from the mangled language). Plagiarism is about non-attribution and deceit. Close paraphrase is about non-attribution, deceit, and failure to present an original expression. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that the emphasis in the nutshell should be on copyright and not plagiarism. Hence I support Fifelfoo's position. -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times See Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Clarification of what "with very few changes" means for a list of some sections on this subject. As discussed in the archives I think it is advantageous to quote and summarise as a style issue rather than using close paraphrasing (how do I know when someone writes Sir Robert Armstrong said he told the truth is a summary of Sir Robert Armstrong said he was "economical with the truth" rather than a unquoted statement of "[I] told the truth"? -- such a nuance is lost in the wash of close paraphrasing). I think that that close paraphrasing is creating so many problems that we should go back to information from copyrighted sources either be summarised or quoted (and discourage close paraphrasing).
I give two examples in the section I mentioned previosly where collateral damage over close paraphrasing has affected this project. So while a talented writer like SV never makes a mistake and violates copyright when close paraphrasing, it is far too easy for many editors to create copyright problems, and so in the interests of the project, I think it better if close paraphrasing is discouraged in favour of summary and quotation. -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)