Content deleted Content added
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) ellipses |
Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) + more on Dickinson |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Not every fact contained in a Wikipedia article ''requires'' attribution. When a fact is "[[Wikipedia:Common knowledge|common knowledge]]"—that is, generally known—it is not plagiarism to repeat it, even if contributors learned it from a specific reference. For example, it is commonly known that [[Emily Dickinson]] published very few poems during her lifetime.<ref>Hacker offers this as an example of common knowledge (p. 107).</ref> Generally, if information is mentioned in many sources, especially general reference sources, and easily found, it is considered common knowledge. It is also acceptable to reproduce non-creative lists of basic information, such as an alphabetical directory of actors appearing in a film. While Wikipedia's [[WP:V|verifiability policy]] encourages the citing of such information, a failure to do so is ''not'' plagiarism. |
Not every fact contained in a Wikipedia article ''requires'' attribution. When a fact is "[[Wikipedia:Common knowledge|common knowledge]]"—that is, generally known—it is not plagiarism to repeat it, even if contributors learned it from a specific reference. For example, it is commonly known that [[Emily Dickinson]] published very few poems during her lifetime.<ref>Hacker offers this as an example of common knowledge (p. 107).</ref> Generally, if information is mentioned in many sources, especially general reference sources, and easily found, it is considered common knowledge. It is also acceptable to reproduce non-creative lists of basic information, such as an alphabetical directory of actors appearing in a film. While Wikipedia's [[WP:V|verifiability policy]] encourages the citing of such information, a failure to do so is ''not'' plagiarism. |
||
Although common knowledge and non-creative lists of basic facts do not "belong" to a source and do not require attribution to avoid plagiarism, less commonly known information, opinions and creative text ''do''. Likewise, the creative ''presentation'' even of common knowledge, belongs to its original author. Contributors can safely re-use the fact, but ''not'' the language unless it is a title, as for a job or a creative work, or utterly devoid of creativity, such as a [[Common phrases|common phrase]]. From a copyright standpoint, the level of creativity required to claim ownership is minimal. The [[United States Supreme Court]] has indicated that under [[United States copyright law|US copyright law]], which governs copyright matters on Wikipedia, "[t]he vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be."<ref>''[[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service]]'', [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=340 499 U.S. 340 ] ([[United States Supreme Court]], 1991).</ref> Similarly, most text will be creative enough that its replication will be plagiarism. Accordingly, while text such as "Dickinson was born on December 10, 1830" can be copied without quotation marks, care must be taken. Further, one cannot copy an entire source in this way, claiming that it is "common knowledge" or uncreative text. In such cases, it can come down to the length of a string of exactly copied words; good editors get a feel for where it's starting to be dishonest not to attribute. |
Although common knowledge and non-creative lists of basic facts do not "belong" to a source and do not require attribution to avoid plagiarism, less commonly known information, opinions and creative text ''do''. Likewise, the creative ''presentation'' even of common knowledge, belongs to its original author. Contributors can safely re-use the fact, but ''not'' the language unless it is a title, as for a job or a creative work, or utterly devoid of creativity, such as a [[Common phrases|common phrase]]. From a copyright standpoint, the level of creativity required to claim ownership is minimal. The [[United States Supreme Court]] has indicated that under [[United States copyright law|US copyright law]], which governs copyright matters on Wikipedia, "[t]he vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be."<ref>''[[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service]]'', [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=340 499 U.S. 340 ] ([[United States Supreme Court]], 1991).</ref> Similarly, most text will be creative enough that its replication will be plagiarism. Accordingly, while text such as "Dickinson was born on December 10, 1830" can be copied without quotation marks, care must be taken not to rely too much on the presumption that text is not creative. Further, one cannot copy an entire source in this way, claiming that it is "common knowledge" or uncreative text. In such cases, it can come down to the length of a string of exactly copied words; good editors get a feel for where it's starting to be dishonest not to attribute. |
||
Less commonly known facts or interpretations of facts must be cited to avoid plagiarism, and creative text must either be quoted or properly revised. |
Less commonly known facts or interpretations of facts must be cited to avoid plagiarism, and creative text must either be quoted or properly revised. |
Revision as of 14:15, 10 April 2009