Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:39, 3 November 2010

Template:Fix bunching

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching

No right of reply? (cont'd)

A shame to archive this discussion. It is, and should be, ongoing. Please refer to the archive. Can we continue? We should look at the legal aspects of suppressing voices. It was well established, due to several attempts to sue WP for defamation (google "Misplaced Pages lawsuits"), that No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act#Court Decisions on Section 230). This law may well make Misplaced Pages immune from lawsuits, but in my opinion, it lays a special moral responsibility on Misplaced Pages to provide fairness and a voice to those BLPs who feel they have been mistreated by the press - and I am one of them. See my website JohnClarkprose.com where I sued Larry King/CNN/Time-Warner, and challenged the Mail on Sunday for their style of reporting. But under the current rules, I am forbidden to add those facts to the article, and I feel strongly that were I to do so, it should not be a vulnerable entry, and subjected to instant deletion by other users for cause. There is one, Will Beback (an admin no less), who is practically ordering me to refrain from ever making an edit to any article in which I have a personal connection. See my talk page. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi JohnClarknew, are you perhaps misreading Will BeBack's statement? "I strongly suggest that you step back from editing articles in which you have an emotional investment and are unable to maintain neutrality." (emphasis mine). You will find information about such in WP:COI and WP:NPOV. And wouldn't filing an WP:RFC been the first appropriate step to take? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, I am a Wikipedian, and proud to be one. Second, I'm trying to show the big picture here. Misplaced Pages, the site that is, is legally immune. But the users? From what I read, users are vulnerable to lawsuits, and cannot claim protection under the cloak of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps that's why so many users refuse to reveal their true names, and prefer to remain anonymous. So be it. But this should be part of the discussion of policy towards BLP. I am strongly in favor of ABLP, as a solution. I think it is something to do with suppressing constitutionally protected free speech, (as Larry King and CNN did towards me in my defamation suit, where the court denied their S.L.A.P.P. petition), : Third person entries, not first person. And all existing rules and procedures should be followed. What's to be afraid of, anyway? I hope responders will first do a little due diligence before uttering further mantras. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You fail to address the point I made about having filed an RfC being the first step to take, and failed to address that your beliefs do not trump policies (and that there are ways of proposing policy changes, which you also did not wait for it to come to a conclusion), and fail to address the probability that you made an unfounded claim against another editor. None of that has to do with "further mantras". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 22:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There are some specific reasons I asked JohnClarknew to step away from certain articles, but I don't think it's helpful to rehash those here. Suffice it to say that there is no prohibition on adding relevant material found in reliable sources presented with the neutral point of view, and that self-published sources may be used in BLPs to present the views of BLP subjects and for other non-contentious assertions. However self-published sources may not be used for attacks on others.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

John Clark, please read this. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(<---) No one's asking for a soapbox. You people are beating about the bush, lawyerspeak, and avoiding the central issue. It's not about allowing soapbox style free speech, it's about not suppressing a living notable's ability to make edits just like other users can. There's an editor-with-an-agenda who contributed a couple of obituaries plus the following to the John Clark (actor/director) page: Boshoff, Alison (2010-05-08). "The love child who broke Lynn Redgrave's heart: In the week the actress died, her ex-husband tells of his shame and regret". Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers Limited). Retrieved 2010-07-31. and ^ Dan Jewel (1999-03-29). "Bizarre 8 Year Secret Tears Apart Redgrave's Marriage.". People Magazine. In John Clark's webpage, he has this to say about that: Daily Mail at it AGAIN. But that piece of information is kept out of the page by the same editor-with-an-agenda. JohnClarknew (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

John Clark, I'm glad to hear that you are only asking for the "ability to make edits just like other users can". I had thought that you wanted more than that (like perhaps the ability to have your edits not subject to deletion like every other editor). All you have to do is to edit anonymously: from a library, a friend's computer, or just change your ISP and register under a user name like "Bob Smith" or "Old Tom". Then when your edits are deleted you will know that the edit is being judged based on its content and not based on the identity of the editor. Welcome to the "Anyone can edit. Anyone can delete. But find consensus rather than engage in an edit war"-pedia. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, I understand your solution. But I don't think that Gaming the system is what our founder had in mind when he came up with our site. In fact, there's a policy rule telling you not to do that. Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system. I do know that in our economy today, many people resort to it out of frustration. Obama blamed Wall Street and bankers for doing it. But I'm old-fashioned and too old to think that way - hey, I'm 78 on Monday... JohnClarknew (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is more flexible than you think. Please read WP:MULTIPLE. E-mail in private your alternate account to a member of the English language Misplaced Pages arbitration committee and don't abuse the alternate account (if you don't know what that means, then either find out or don't have an alternate account in the first place); then what you are doing is NOT gaming the system. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny when editing an article where there's a conflict of interest is probably a violation of WP:SOCK. It's certainly not something that we should be advising people to do.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny" is an example of abuse of the alternate account (hence the need to "E-mail in private your alternate account to a member of the English language Misplaced Pages arbitration committee"); as is using multiple accounts to comment on proposals or requests, cast votes, or engage in edit warring. It's certainly not something that we should be advising just anyone to do; you are certainly right about that. To use multiple accounts without abuse requires something special ... perhaps something that might take ... oh, I don't know ... maybe 78 years of experience to handle with adequate savoir faire. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest says "Misplaced Pages places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment prohibits this. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themself discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identify themself or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.". - WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that WP:Sock puppetry said to consider notifying ArbCom, not that there's need to do so. Maintaining an account that doesn't use a real name is a reasonable exercise of privacy, considering how closely one's habits can be tracked from the edit timestamps. Of course, using a separate anonymous account to weigh in on an existing dispute in an article about you is another matter. Wnt (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Some editors have trouble using even one account without causing problems.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Very true, Will. I say "Give 'em enough rope to hang themselves". - WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday to me... Happy birthday to me...Happy birthday to me me, happy birthday to me. Yes, November 1st. 78. Notice that it's All Saints Day, gang? I plan to enjoy myself, and have a nice day. Sorry for this autobiographical entry, but noone else is doing it. Have a nice day. JohnClarknew (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday, John. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you decide to have alternate accounts, Will Beback can show you how it can be done without breaking Misplaced Pages policies - User:Will Beback NS, User:Willmcw, and User:User2004 are alternate accounts of Will Beback as he explains at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Will Beback. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between disclosed and undisclosed alternate accounts. I've never used undisclosed alternate accounts, though I've blocked many.   Will Beback  talk  10:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Different cases can make different levels of disclosre optimum. Between advice from you and from e-mail to/from arbcom I'm sure he can be guided to a level of disclosure that will allow him to feel as if he can have the "ability to make edits just like other users can". WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to debunk the idea that the Los Angeles Times is a reliable source. What better way than to demonstrate with the empirical experience of a BLP notable? This is from the site Showbusiness Meets the Law, a public service free of advertising. Here's the entry with facts about biased reporting by the LA Times examined forensically: Redgrave vs. John Clark. ( A side question - are sworn declarations from the court record considered legitimate references to articles?) JohnClarknew (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to debunk the idea that the empirical experience of a BLP notable is a reliable source. What better way than to demonstrate that but with the Los Angeles Times? (surely you can see the problem here; Bill Clinton is a BLP notable - so obviously he had no "sex with that woman" - NOT) ( A side answer - sworn declarations from the court records can be legitimate references to articles; but they are a primary source, not a secondary source; thus are more susceptible to misinterpretation (All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV) fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources.) and willful "original research" (Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought: all material in Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.) - WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Bill Clinton is a BLP notable - so obviously he had no "sex with that woman" - NOT: I don't get your drift here. Let Bill Clinton comment on the "page referencing him", not subject to deletion by the WP police force. Now THAT would put Misplaced Pages on the map, big time! Also, admin Beback disagrees with you regarding court sworn documents, see Talk:John Clark (actor). JohnClarknew (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "admin Beback". An administrator is just another editor, outside of using certain administrative tools. But you can call me "Master Editor Beback". There are over a thousand administrators, but fewer than a hundred Master Editors (6 years, 75,000 edits). That's the relevant accomplishment (meager though it be). ;) Don't mind me, it's just because I've been hanging around so long that I pretend to know what I'm talking about.   Will Beback  talk  11:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty. Hard to admit you've been pretending all these years. As for me, well, I've got a solution which will save further embarrassment and allow every Wiki editor to relax. What if I fake my death? Then I can sign on with an anonymous name like everyone else, and can edit away at John Clark (actor/director). Then I'd no longer be a BLP but a BDP (is there such a category?) JohnClarknew (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Master Editor Beback" is correct. John Clark, you, on the other hand, DO get my drift - you just want to pretend to not hear it. We don't and won't let Bill Clinton place comments that others may not edit or delete on any of the hundreds of articles that mention him; because as we have already established, Misplaced Pages strives for neutral point of view (NPOV) and therefore does not allow "soapbox style free speech" in the articles; which earlier you denied wanting, but now you clearly return to your wish do exactly that. As we have now gone full circle, I am convinced you know the rules; so I am done here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad you are done. I'm not. While waiting for WP to take the giant step - which it will, you'll see - I'm suggesting that the BLP subject should be able to also add VERIFIED information while also respecting the five pillars. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My experience, which dates to near the beginning of Misplaced Pages (even though the account I finally registered doesn't show it), is that hardly ever works well. It is also the exact opposite of the intent of trying to guard against conflicts of interests because the subjects of the articles (people, organizations, etc), whether they like it or not, tend to have biases with the respective subject matter - and often aren't even aware of it. In addition, many have tried using WP as a soapbox to promote their beliefs or points of views or interpretations against anything derogatory said about them. Using oneself as a reliable source about such things is of course biased in almost every instance it's been done. While you may (or may not) be able to separate your biases from your contributions in such fashion, citing onself is still the implication of bias in such controversial situations. Interestingly, the subject can be cited, if done right. But that does not include using Misplaced Pages to make a statement. Say it somewhere, hope some reliable source picks it up, let someone edit the article to say "John Clark claims..."(cite to RS) and be done with it. But surely, you are not suggesting that because you said it, and said it here on WP that it's a valid edit to the article, do you?

Honestly, this all seems to be about you wanting to use WP as a soapbox for your retorts to claims made or content in the article. I think (but could be wrong) that you will be waiting a long time for that to actually be permitted. I also think your opening of this topic/section, where you allude to legal issues, may be misconstrued (or properly construed? dunno, as you don't elucidate) as meaning it's something you wouldn't mind testing. In hindsight, you may find it wasn't the best starting point for discussion.

And finally, I don't see what is so difficult about making suggestions and providing reliable sources on the article's talk pages and asking other editors to evaluate and (if they deem fit) include such info. I've got a few articles I have a COI with, and that's exactly what I do. And every time I can back up my claims with a RS, the info gets evaluated and included (and the times I cant back them up with an RS, I dont post the info on the talk page).

The article in question isn't your autobiography, nor will it ever be. Everything you say seems to lead to an implication that you wish/want much of it to be such. It won't happen; regardless of whether you edit as an anon or under your current account. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 21:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that articles shouldn't be autobiographical, I think John Clarke has some valid points. He has taken defamation action against news agencies. Yet we still use that news agency as a reliable source a represent what it has said as part of his biography. If borne out, this line of action appears to be potentially a spectacular failure of WP:BLP and leave Misplaced Pages open to the same defamation action that is already actioned on those news agencies.

I agree with you that discussing additions on the Talk Page is a good way forward. I also think that the editor with the COI should be able to remove sourced defamatory statements under WP:Burden; however that editor should clarify the nature of the defamation and the specific unreliability of the source on the Talk page as well so that neutral editors can find a way to improve on the material before (or if) it is re-inserted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

To unsigned. So what that he's got a defamation case or three filed? Come back if he wins them, or until then, find a reliable source that states he's filed such case(s) and why. That way covers reality. "The (insert source here) claims... which is currently in dispute by (subject) in this defamation case (source/case)." Do you really think we should just pretend history hasn't happened - or do you think instead we should properly portray things as they have happened and as suppored by reliable sources?

The "odd" thing is all of this is covered in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, which though JC has been pointed to on numerous occasions, it doesnt seem like they are being read or understood (and not specifically/just by him). ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 22:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't unsigned, I just forgot the colon on the second paragraph. The problem isn't whether history hasn't happened, the problem is that by representing it as fact WP becomes liable for defamation. Per WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" -if a defamation case is filed against a source, then that source is in immediate risk of becoming poorly sourced and it should be removed immediately while the source is being challenged in court - if the court finds no defamation then it can be reinserted until such time as it may be challenged again.

The problem is that the scandal may be high profile and receive plenty of media coverage where as the defamation case may not, court records should stand as a reliable source but it may be only people close to the case and having a COI who know that such a case has been launched (or even won) and we should not be continuing to host proven (or at risk of being proven) defamatory material just because no-one has found a source that proves it is defamatory. If someone with COI to the case sees the material and honestly removes it in good faith as long as they then make the unreliable sourcing reasons clear on the talk page then it should not be discouraged and I would think that this agrees with both WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting policy. Now, let's stop and see how it applies. The claims were not poorly sourced, and where are the well sourced claims of defamation? JohnClark claims he's filed defamation cases, great! Provide links to court documents or RS news stories. As I said, it is all covered in policy, and the desire (by some) is to ignore policy - whether due to ignorance, intent or attempt at creating an article more favorable towards the subject matter - but the reasons dont so much matter in that policy simply needs to be followed. ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 23:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said the Court document may not be available online it may take an editor walking down to the court or local office and paying $25 to have a copy of the documents made, and if the defamation suit in it's self is of little press interest (or the press are not made aware) compared to the scandal that created it there may be no coverage in secondary RS. It is not a reason to retain defamatory material for the lack of immediate access to a source that proves that it is defamatory (or at least being questioned). both of the policies I mention above are very clear about this. If the subject of the article (or someone close to them) claims a defamation suit is under way against one or more of our sources then we cannot risk leaving that material in place or the next suit may be against WP. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, and a very inferred reading of that section (which notes nothing of the sort that applies to this - you keep applying other scenarios as if they fit this one). And why would John Clark need to pay for documents or take a walk anywhere for documents he already has? Where's that info? I am not saying defamatory information should be kept. But I also dont see the quidelines you quote as saying what you claim they exactly say.

He could have brought this to ArbCom, BLP Noticeboard, or a bunch of other places - proved his case, and actually gotten results. Instead, the way I am reading this is JC simply wants the right to remove information on a (possibly true, possibly not) claim he doesnt like, that there is a (possibly real/possibly not) defamation case going on against the (otherwise presumed) reliable sources that have made them. I've seen how cases of article subjects requesting the right to ensure "their" article is written has gone in the past. Have you? His claims are easy enough for him to prove. Doing so in the CORRECT venue, as suggested numerous times, would have ended this a long time ago. Not doing so, to an outsider who doesnt assume good faith on his action, would make it seem he's more interested in controlling the content of "his" article here, then reporting valid defamation and having it removed quickly by the numerous options open to him. I guess I can AGF a little longer, but how long (with a half dozen suggestions on how to properly deal with this expediently) should I or anyone else? ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 00:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Court documents are not normally considered to be reliable sources since they are essentially self-published. Opinions by appellate courts are an exception, but that's not a factor here. FWIW I have found a 2004 mention of a case Clark brought against Larry King and CNN, but no mention of the outcome.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have been clearer...

• In the presence of court documents of an open case, I would assume it is perfectly valid to mention that the premise of a reliable source is being contested by the article's subject, and give appropriate weight to the subject's objections as stated in the documents (and re-evaluating things once the case has been concluded).
• In this and some similar circumstances, the matters that have not been addressed are:
  • Are there defamation cases filed? (I don't know John Clark. I don't even know where to look for such cases when they are only vaguely mentioned (ie: "I filed defamation cases against..."))
  • Are they still pending or ongoing?
  • Were they dismissed as "no merit"? (in which case, but sorry, I'd say the information stays as a court has ruled it's not defamatory)
  • Were they won? (in which case, sure, lets modify the article to address that the rs content was disputed by the subject and found defamatory)

And finally, the big one:

• This could have been resolved by John Clark simply following just one of the links provided and going to the proper venue to resolve this quickly instead of dragging this out for around a week now.

The "And finally..." is the big one. This should be done and over with by simply filing a report in the proper place with the proper information. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 00:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Will Beback|Will Beback]]  talk  00:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

@Robert taking a walk would apply to an uninvolved third party editor wishing to prove that john clarke's claim of a defamation suit is true. The only way to WP:V that a case exists its to get details from the court not from taking the word (or a self published court document) from the editor with the COI. That does apply in this case as the press only slightly covered one of john's suits and has ignored the other, so we have John's word or we need to find a neutral court document.

Yes John should take his claim to one of those locations, but as I've said before that's part of WP:Burden the removal is unrestricted then the debate about re-including it can be fairly conducted in these locations. Leaving material with any potential for defamation in place and debating it's removal is not an acceptable way to treat either the material or the subject of the article and again it leaves WP open to litigation whilst that debate takes place.

@Will when you say self published, do you mean in the sense of open to tampering by the subject of the case if not provided by the court? The usecof court documents is frowned upon because they are primary sources, primary sources are fine if they represent a statement of fact and we use primary sources like birth or death indexes all the time. Stating a fact like X is suing Y for defamation due to article Z is a simple statement of fact and the source should be usable in debate. Of course if the primary source contains a complex opinion like a court transcript, it should not be used for adding material. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

@Stuart: There seems more interest in changing WP policy than addressing this issue though. Otherwise, again, this would have been resolved a long time ago.

Additionally, this "it lays a special moral responsibility on Misplaced Pages to provide fairness and a voice to those BLPs who feel they have been mistreated by the press" indicates not just that, but that a soapbox is wanted, not because of defamation specifically, but because he thinks Misplaced Pages should be a vehicle he can use to make his voice heard because he thinks he's been "mistreated". I do not and will not ever support Misplaced Pages being perverted into every public figure's soapbox. Will you? I doubt the community will either.

ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 01:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The ability of the same voices to pervert ordinary speech to their purpose is making me feel quite sick. Here's the word soapbox. Read about it. Think about it. It is not to be applied to a BLPer who has been trying to offset the blast of biased editing by the same users on a matter of private lives splattered in the pages of the gutter press. I've written about it, and guess what, you don't need to bother with reading it and it is clear that you are not. JohnClarknew (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No John Clark. What is clear is:

• If your interests were resolving the issue with your article, you would have done so a long time ago by following the appropriate link myself or others provided for you
• Your real interest is to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. I will not play word games with you on how you wish to define the word. You made the claim, call it what you want.
• You wish to see Misplaced Pages's policies changed in this respect - another part of the reason you are here (at Jimbo's page) - but even in that respect, you once again ignore the proper ways of doing it and are trying to do an end run around the Misplaced Pages community
• Pick whatever word you think is appropriate to replace soapbox. Use your own website for that.
• You have provided nothing but vague claims, a statement that implies a thinly veiled legal threat or that gives the appearance you have already consulted a lawyer to see if you could sue WMF and were told no, then claim you want something done about it, get told where to go to have it dealt with properly and DONT try to get the issue fixed. You very carefully use words in a way that does not address any issue raised - or outright ignore any issue raised.

You are simply here to try to make a point and force a policy change with an end run around the community. Things I could (but wont) speculate you are here for is to drive traffic to your site, and create publicity for yourself - but I wont speculate on those things. I'll sit back at this point and watch you continue and see how much further you go without trying even once to get your issues resolved via the proper venue.

Wait! I just thought of something! Since you cant seem to find the right venue to deal with this, and you've made some pretty big claims in your earlier posts, maybe I can help you! I am pretty sure (assuming your claims on the article content is correct). there's a criteria for speedy deletion that can be used to remove the entire entry on Misplaced Pages about you. Would you like me to file that CSD? Or perhaps you can go to the correct venue to deal with this issue? Your unwillingness to do so seems to indicate (y'know: actions, louder, words) a disinterest in doing so.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 15:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Shift the burden

The entries for BLP's are in fact CVs of these same people. A Curriculum Vitae provides an overview of a person's life and qualifications. There is a simple answer to what seems to be the biggest contentious and most vexing issue with Misplaced Pages's current policy. BLP entries are now treated forensically with encyclopedic emphasis. It assumes the burden to be on the subject to somehow make corrections to make sure that the truth is told, but then is downright forbidden to actively and directly do so. The answer which has been staring one in the face all along is that the burden should be on Misplaced Pages, not the other way around. The rules should be changed. The Notable Person should be able to post their CV on the site, and editors should then have the burden to show that there are lies being told if they can. Yes, that would be an autobiographical entry. The notable person would have the responsibility of preserving the integrity of their CV. The CV would contain unverifiable information. Woe betide the writer if deliberate false claims are made, maybe they should risk deletion. The notable person could say, like politicians do in those relentless political TV ads "I approve this entry." And there would be very little editing by users, perhaps none. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights and plagiarism

Hi Jimmy, something you should probably have a look at: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page‎. Includes accusations that a sitting arbitrator (who's since retired) plagiarised/copy-pasted for what had been today's featured article, Grace Sherwood. Any input? StrPby (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The primary issue appears to be setting the precise point at which simple statement of a fact becomes plagiarism. Some appear to think that entirely different word order etc. is essential to avoid it being plagiarism, while others have felt simple statements of fact (such as "Hitler invaded Poland rapidly on thus-and-such a date" is plagiarism if any source used the same basic language. I think that plagiarism should not be asserted where the non-copyrightable fact is what has been copied, and not any original other assertions or style elements. Collect (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• See User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright#Is it a copyright problem or plagiarism, and what difference does it make? for one of many discussions about inferring too close a relationship between copyright and plagiarism. Uncle G (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Try Plagiarism is the deliberate attempt to deceive the reader through the appropriation and representation as one's own the work and words of others. . Some of the examples on WP do not involve any such "attempt to deceive" at all. Indeed, some "examples" are of the order of the hypothetical one I gave - where the statement is one of fact, and where no "borrowing" anything from the other author. Consider There are only 15 recorded witchcraft cases in the Virginia colony in the 1600s, with most ending in acquittals. which is clearly a simple statement of fact. The "Plagiarism Checker" does not assert that it is plagiarism, for example. Our problem is that WP editors can assert "plagiarism" even where no court would assert such. Let's deal primarily with extended material, not with simple statements of fact, for goodness' sake. Collect (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to hope you are joking, but I have seen too much genuine confusion about plagiarism to do so.
  • Original: "Records survive of 15 witchcraft cases in the Virginia colony in the 1600s, with most ending in acquittals, said Frances Pollard, "
  • Plagiarised: "There are only 15 recorded witchcraft cases in the Virginia colony in the 1600s, with most ending in acquittals."

An automatic "plagiarism checker" is not a magic tool that can absolve anyone from a plagiarism charge. It doesn't define plagiarism. Taking 8 sentences out of an original sequence of 9 and rephrasing most of them slightly (not even all of them!), as happened in this edit as compared to this source, is precisely the kind of superficial operation that is meant by plagiarism. You are supposed to read a text, understand it, and then say some of the things it says with your own words, ideally removing some of the less important bits and filling in some of the details you know from elsewhere. It would still have been plagiarism if every single sentence had been rephrased thoroughly, but not even that was done. Hans Adler 17:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Example of rephrasing in an original manner: "Records from Virginia colony dating from the seventeenth century tell of fifteen people accused of witchcraft, the majority of which were found not guilty."

I'm not sure that this is actually a desirable ethic. Plagiarism is not a crime, after all, and is there any reason why we, morally, should say that it is better to move around some words while using the same basic facts? Especially when the urge to rephrase can end up distorting the meaning in more technical works? I can understand the residual fear of using the text word-for-word in a copyright-blighted society, and I can see why rephrasing can be justified as a method of evading copyright claims, however overreaching. But it seems like when this is presented as plagiarism we move from a plausible and definable fear to an irrational taboo. Wnt (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment looks like a good example of the verifiability fundamentalism that currently appears to make plagiarism prosper. Encyclopedia articles are written by reading and understanding many sources, and then writing a good overview text based on the collected knowledge. They are not written by taking bits and pieces from several individual sources, polishing each a bit, and plugging them all together. Except in Misplaced Pages, where unfortunately this has become a common practice. But it is plagiarism. In some cases there is a natural most succinct way of putting some key fact, or a small number of such. This is typically recognisable by the fact that many independent sources use very similar formulations. But the above example is far from being such a case. Hans Adler 07:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You might have a point about knowledge, and I don't just want to cobble together bits and pieces. But the criticism should apply equally well to the rephrased sentence as to the original wording. Yes, we should see rewording occur incidentally to good writing in many cases - for example, my feeling is that if there were only 15 cases, we should list them one by one; and saying "only" is the sort of value judgment we should avoid for NPOV; and we should say exactly how many led to guilty verdicts, etc. We should have multiple sources and be joining sentences together for brevity as we condense down what they all say into a single text. But if our stub article has one source and we have one sentence written verbatim from that source, or even six or seven, with the source properly cited, I don't think it should count against an editor as some high crime or misdemeanor. (Though admittedly, even in this case, I'd prefer that such a block of text, if taken verbatim, be put in quotes, even if it looks strange to do so). Wnt (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Whenever we have to build a section on a single source, and that single source is already so condensed that we can't condense it further – then we are in trouble. It's often a sign that we are missing the more detailed sources that we should really be building the article on, perhaps because they are all offline, but it can also be a sign that we are giving too much weight to an aspect of a topic. If I had found the above sentence and decided that something like the information it contains should be added to the article, I would certainly have tried to get other, corroborating (or contradictory) information. Are there any sources giving a general overview over 17th century witch trials in the colonies? How did the Virginia statistics compare to those of the others? An intelligent editor who takes their job seriously will always find additional aspects which they feel are worth mentioning, and will often replace some of the minor points from the source with them. E.g. (I am just making things up here): "Europe and some of the European colonies saw a wave of judicial witch hunts in the 17th century, sometimes even ending in a conviction. In North America the phenomenon was primarily centered in Massachusetts, but more than a dozen cases, spread over a period of 70 years, occurred in Virginia as well." (Again, no actual research went into this sentence and it's probably totally misleading.) Hans Adler 08:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that more sources are desirable, and summarization is desirable; still, if someone copies and pastes two sentences into a new article and cites them to their source, even though omitting to use quotation marks, the resulting stub is still better than nothing. Wnt (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In your example it's not better, because two copied sentences in a stub amounts to a clear copyvio and the entire stub may have to be deleted. I agree in general that a plagiarised article is still better than no article, but if we trust random editors' judgement about the line between plagiarism and copyvios we will get too many clear copyvios. Hans Adler 09:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see this discussion moved into a really constructive direction. Misplaced Pages is currently working on the assumption that random anonymous contributors are sufficiently mature and responsible to

• understand how copyright works
• not intentionally break copyrights
• know what plagiarism is
• not intentionally plagiarise.

As the huge backlog of plagiarism investigations shows, this assumption is far from realistic, and this day proved it beyond all doubt: It started three days ago with User:Camelbinky's plagiarised Malta Test Station being discovered while it was on the main page under DYK. The resulting scrutiny led to a discovery of more plagiarised content in DYK articles. Today the DYK Brown Lady of Raynham Hall had to be pulled from the main page for similar reasons. An arbitrator was very testy while all this was going on, and today we found out why: His featured article Grace Sherwood had to be pulled because of extensive plagiarism (and in fact copyvios) from a USA Today article.

It is not realistic to expect that Misplaced Pages editors have a better average understanding of plagiarism than American undergraduates. See this article: Roig, Miguel (1997), "Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized?", The Psychological Record. In fact, experience tells that a lot of editors even think it's OK to copy entire paragraphs from a non-free source into the edit window, rephrase a bit, and hit save.

This creates a situation in which some of our most talented and most conscientious editors feel under pressure to clean up after the most reckless ones. I can feel this pressure myself, although I mostly ignore it because it's no fun and I would feel abused if I spent a significant amount of time removing copyvios.

We must do something if we don't want to wake up some day to the realisation that roughly 25% of our content is copyvios, and since we can't tell for sure which, we must pull all the content immediately. I don't know if American internet law makes the WMF immune to accusations of reckless passive support of serial copyvios, but even if that's true the situation might change at some point. At the moment we are reckless, and this can't go on. In my investigations today I have learned that a serial copyright violator can repeatedly remove User:CorenSearchBot's justified templates, get the articles through DYK and on the main page – and all that with no consequences.

I guess we need very clear words from above, as in the case of BLP, to the effect that no, we don't welcome copyvios, and yes, we really mean it, and if you don't take that seriously you will be shown the door. And maybe we need some kind of copyright/plagiarism quiz that editors have to go through after a certain number of mainspace edits. Hans Adler 16:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It started three days ago with User:Camelbinky's plagiarised Malta Test Station being discovered while it was on the main page under DYK. ... Hans Adler, with all the wild words flying all around Misplaced Pages, I just want to thank you for the most (in fact, maybe the only) accurate summary of how this evolved that I've read anywhere. People are thanking me on my talk page for being a "whistleblower", when in fact, that's not how this came about at all. Camelbinky took a DYK copyvio tagging to ANI to accuse me of falsely tagging his article, and the rest unfolded very publicly from there, including a "testy" arbitrator and an admin abusing of me and claiming I had "vandalised"-- a claim he has yet to retract or apologize for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Around Robin Hood's barn examples of rephrasing do exemplify not good writing standards. Short factual statements are not plagiarism. "John Doe lived at 1313 Mockingbird Lane" need not be reprhased as "On Mockingbird Lane, numero 1313, dwelt and resided Mr. Doe, first name John." Collect (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence. As to the rest: It's true, but it's not very relevant to what triggered this discussion. In each case many consecutive sentences were copied that were a lot more complicated than yours and could have been paraphrased much more freely than was done, without sounding stilted. Hans Adler 18:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I give a specific example of "plagiarism" per "similar phrasing" (concerning inheritance of the Low Countries, etc.) on the discussion regarding plagiarism page. I fear you might recognize the person who could be so charged on the basis of "similar phrasing" of what seems to me to be just fact. Collect (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Go (all the way) Around Robin Hood’s Barn: verb phrase : To engage in an unnecessarily roundabout course of action. Dictionary of American Regional English, Vol. 4, page 608. Regard, Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.247.25 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably best not to assign meaning to what other editors, think and feel. That's slippery slope that begins with not assuming good faith and can end miles from any kind of reality.(olive (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

I've dealt with a case of a really straightforward case of copyvio on an article which had been included as a DYK where several sentences throughout the page were verbatim reproductions of the main copyrighted source indicated, the structure of the article followed the structure of the source, etc. That page, too, was from an experienced editor, who sometime later for apparently different reasons went "on leave" and has never returned under that name. We all make mistakes, and certainly this may have been one, particularly if the phrasing copied were, as it were, the best encyclopedic phrasing possible - I don't know the details here. I agree that we do need to send word that clear plagarism by an experienced editor who should have known better at the time they performed the action in question is unacceptable, and we should do everything in our power to indicate as much. This would also extend to newer editors who engage in the kind of obvious copying which makes it all but impossible to think that it was not intentional plagarism. Not so sure whether a single event of such by an experienced editor should be considered grounds for being shown the door, although some sort of sanction in extreme cases would be welcome. It might be reasonable to be more lenient on what might be a single, possibly inadvertent, case of copyvio, though. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Trusted editor: assume good faith, talk/discuss, fix article if needed, then, deal with how concerns on how articles are written staying close to sources in impersonal community wide discussion. Not... Trusted editor: No integrity suddenly, assume the worst/jump to conculsions, make example of, show the door. Which points to a collaborative community that supports its hard working editors in creating the best encyclopedia possible. And key words, highly trusted editor.(olive (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

Serious issues of plagiarism have been raised, and it is not helpful to deflect them with appeals to good faith: naturally no editors will be abused for a couple of mistakes. We need to establish whether it is ok for articles to contain significant plagiarism (answer: no), and whether editors should be stopped from repeating plagiarism (answer: yes). This is a question of ethics and reputation, not law. I do not know if "plagiarism" is mentioned in one of the policies, but it should be, and perhaps should be added to WP:5P. I don't think it is satisfactory to rely on the (ignorable) WP:Plagiarism guideline because, as indicated above, it is very hard to find and correct plagiarism, whereas it is fun and easy to use copy/paste/tweak to gain DYK or FA status. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two distinct issues here one is the editor or editors, the other is the content. We cannot conflate the two. When dealing with an experienced editor with a long and honorable history one does indeed assume the best of that editor. He deserves no less. We don't assume after years of service he suddenly ran amok and began to behave in a way that would harm the encyclopedia he spent years of his life working for. Its not even clear who added the content and who checked that article during the FA process. I am describing a process that should have included respect and reasoned discussion but which unfortunately may have been more dramatic than needed, There was no deflection, and drama doesn't really add anything to a discussion.(olive (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

If you're talking about Grace Sherwood, that is inaccurate. It is very clear who added that content, and you only have to read the FAC to know who checked and supported it. It is equally easy to find the diff where the arb became "testy", saying the whole issue was "jaw flapping". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the update. On the last thread I read there was discussion about who added what since there where multiple concerns. The issue though has to do with how we treat editors. A lot of drama can be created around any given situation. That seems to be the nature of Misplaced Pages. Given this is an editor with a long history of great work for the encyclopedia, well, there are multiple assumptions that have been made. Why are we assuming the worst of the editor? How does that happen? Five years of hard work, one possible mistake and the five years are down the toilet, if the drama that has ensued is any indication. Misplaced Pages isn't about blame and showing someone the door. Its about dealing with issues so that editors become better at what they do. I worked on that article in a small way. I was not dealing with someone that was trying to pull some kind of fast one on the encyclopedia, I worked with someone who was attempting to create a strong article and when he felt he wasn't good at something he humbly asked for help. You don't put out a public request for help if you're hiding something. Multiple editors had access to that content, me included, and no one happened on the content that was close to the sources or something would have been said and the content revised. Rlevse was looking for input and was open to everything suggested. Like I said, many of us were working on that article and we all missed the problem. We all have ownership of any article we work on, and responsibility. An FA reviewer should have caught the problem, but he missed it too. As far as I'm concerned we all take responsibility for what happened, and the lesson is we all have be more careful. And I'd be testy too if I'd been facing the comments Rlevse did, darn testy.(olive (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Plagiarism is hard to detect and is always primarily the fault of the person who commits it. If you examine Rlevse's contribution history you will see that he became increasingly agitated about the attention to copyvios in DYK, culminating in the "jaw flapping" comment at 0:47 (followed by a related fight with Roux). At 2:03 an anonymous user startedTalk:Grace Sherwood#content copied. For some reason the IP was blocked, and Rlevse tried to downplay the problem. When Malleus noted that the IP seemed to have a point, Rlevse sent Malleus an email and stopped editing for 8 hours. When he came back at 10:43 he complained that people had not noticed his switch from attack mode to damage control mode , and blamed Malleus for not having noticed his copyvios (most blatant: 8 consecutive sentences lifted from a consecutive passage in the source, mostly literal copying, a different source attributed in the edit). This is where the loss of his advanced privileges became inevitable, and his quick realisation of the fact is why I can continue to esteem him overall.

And I note that you completely misunderstood my long comment with the four bullets. Although I was not aware of Rlevse's retirement at the time (IIRC), I trusted Rlevse that he would draw the consequences, as he did. I wasn't asking for his head, I was trying the same that Risker is trying in the section below: Make us all look at the big picture and start doing something about the general problem. Hans Adler 07:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually wasn't referring to you in particular at all. I'd read multiple thread and my comments were more general. I'm not going to attribute any meaning to any behaviour nor should anyone. And after five years of the kind of service this editor has given, to decide that he no longer deserves to be treated like someone who gave that kind of service, sorry, that's not right in my opinion. Every editor on this page has made errors on this encyclopedia, every one, some more serious than others. And I do not believe that an editor who has show consistent integrity over a five year period suddenly turned bad and knowingly and deliberately created articles that would harm the encyclopedia. Doesn't make any sense. Until that editor tells us what happened and why, his five years and his integrity are what I look at. Yes we are responsible for what we add to an article but an article that is being prepped for FS status, and we all knew it, well, we missed something. You imply Rlevse was hiding something and was found out so became testy. That also makes zero sense. Any of us working on that article could have easily come across the problematic text. Nothing was hidden. I'll leave this conversation alone now. I had no intention of climbing into such a discussion and I doubt Rlevse needs it.(olive (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

The problems with this editor's contributions do not appear to be limited to one article. I'm seeing plagiarism and copyvios in other recent articles of his, including Ferry Plantation House, Silver Knapsack Trail, and Lawrence E. Roberts, three out of the four I've looked at. His contributions are going to need a careful review, and it may be simpler in some cases to delete the articles so that they can be recreated fresh.   Will Beback  talk  08:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I may as well point out that I have long known that there are also other WP:V problems in Rlevse's work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Generalized discussion on copyright violation, plagiarism and close paraphrasing

Turning this discussion from the specific to the general is likely to be of more benefit to the project as a whole. This entire project is supposed to be derived from other sources; it's right there in WP:5. Therefore, the only real issue here is attribution, and how we go about doing it. People need to realise that all of the text in this project is supposed to be a derivative work.

First off, actual copyright violations in the current text of the article should be edited out, either by copy editing or removal. Attribution should be made either through the edit summary or (preferred) with a notice on the talk page of the article saying "versions x to y contained material directly derived from <source>. This material is now properly attributed as of <date>." Copyvios found in the history of the article, but not present at the time of editing, should be similarly attributed. Bottom line - copyright holders do not care about historical versions, only the ones that are currently displayed; by attributing the prior text to them, we have appropriately credited their work and have met our obligations. The vast majority of historical copyvios will never be detected unless someone literally walks through the article history line by line; probably 80% of articles with more than 100 edits have at least one edit that somebody will consider a copyvio in there somewhere, and many of those will have been transformed during the course of editing to perfectly acceptable, properly attributed text.

As to plagiarism and close paraphrasing, again the key is attribution. Many statements of fact have a limited number of ways that they can be expressed, and often the published source will say it best; even if the inserting editor rewords the statement, someone else coming along later may very well improve the writing in a way that matches or nearly matches the original source - simply because that is the most appropriate, clear, concise way to state the fact. The fact that two disparate writers independently come to the same conclusion about the best way to state a fact means that there is no plagiarism or close paraphrasing; it is something that any copy editor could do unintentionally without even reading a reference source. We should not be demonizing editors for writing clearly and concisely, provided they are properly attributing their sources.

Finally, we need to recognize that there is a very significant tension between "no original research" (or no publication of de novo information or interpretation) and the requirement of verifiability, and the expectation that editors "put things in their own words". Editors have been pilloried for closely following sources even for factual information, and for rewording that same information so that it reads differently than ("is a new interpretation of") the original source. We need to find a middle ground here, where editors can be reasonably assured their work will not be attacked, or the motivation to edit will continue to diminish. Risker (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The other immediate problem is that discussion is being carried on in at least four or five venues currently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Good points in general, so long as they are not interpreted as saying anything about the specific case. But we really need to do something about the balance between verifiability and plagiarism avoidance. The pendulum is currently way too far on the side of encouraging plagiarism, and too little is done to make it clear that the widespread practice of copying text from some online source into the edit text area and taking it as a basis for a passage in the article is totally wrong and not acceptable at all. Normally it comes out only if people aren't sufficiently thorough with the rephrasing (maybe because they get interrupted and forgot where they were when they return?), but the line is already crossed when an entire sentence that is not intended for literal quotation is pasted. Offenders typically try to defend themselves by saying that "only" two sentences were copied literally from the source and the others "thoroughly rewritten" (i.e. superficially wikified, plus a few other superficial changes that did not affect the order in which thoughts are presented or any other key accidental features of the original source). This must stop.

Editors don't know when they are plagiarising, or think that plagiarism is what they are expected to do. How can we change this? Hans Adler 08:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that plagiarism, when it falls short of genuinely illegal copyright violation, should not draw blocks or other severe sanctions, especially on the first complaint. We don't have to treat editors like criminals in such a case. It might be frowned on culturally; it might tend to look bad for Misplaced Pages or detract from an editor's reputation; but it's not actually in conflict with Misplaced Pages's core mission to get verifiable information into the article. It's not as bad as vandalism, and in my opinion it's not as bad as deletionism! It is also conceivable that a good editor could commit plagiarism accidentally - after all, when I edit articles I occasionally paste bits of source text into the edit box and delete them as I cover the points I want, and an accident is at least conceivable. N.B. I'd suggest replacing the very word "plagiarism" with "failure to clearly mark (and/or cite) quotations" Wnt (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the term plagiarism is often (and that includes the case that started this thread) used as a euphemism for copyvios. Another part of the problem is that if you create a passage by copying something from a source and rephrasing it, then you are creating a derivative version in the sense of copyright. If you are doing it thoroughly and don't save before you have finished, then the only thing that can be proved is plagiarism, but technically I think it's still a copyvio. But the editors who work in this way often make mistakes, and thus create text that looks harmless but after inspection of the page history turns out to be derived from copyrighted text and therefore a copyvio. I am categorically against advising editors to continue plagiarising, but to be more careful not to cross the line to provable copyvios. If editors stop plagiarising they will be in no danger of committing inadvertent copyvios, and it's better for the encyclopedia anyway. We are big enough already. It's time to focus on quality, which is our main problem. Hans Adler 08:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We agree that mere rephrasing is a bad thing; it should follow that any policy that permits content if rephrasing is done, but not otherwise, is also a bad thing. Wnt (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Some corners of academia have a standard for plagiarism that is much stricter than what we're talking about or need. I was taught that if you're just rehashing, even entirely in your own words, what a writer is saying without giving them attribution then that's plagiarism. A fresh idea required the synthesis of two or more sources. We often don't have the luxury of two sources for every idea or fact, and we aren't writing academic term papers. We need to draw a firm line prohibiting copyright violations and outright plagiarism, but we also need to be careful that we draw it in an encyclopedia-centered way, rather than with standards that are more applicable to dissertations. This encyclopedia is its own thing.

Often we have to use a close paraphrase of a source. I've seen disputes that revolve around "that's not what the source says" in which the text gets closer and closer to the source material. That's usually a good thing, depending on the source. It's possible to inch towards plagiarism, as opposed to starting with it and then changing just enough to make it pass. Let's be careful how we proceed with policy changes with this issue, as it could disrupt a lot of carefully balanced articles.   Will Beback  talk  09:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly, the fallout from this, currently ranging from Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know through User talk:Risker#Can you explain to Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates, as well as, of course, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page, has yet to hit Misplaced Pages talk:Plagiarism. I suspect that it's only a matter of time, though. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is where our community discussion model doesn't upscale. Even if we concentrated it in one place, it would quickly be tl;dr with people repeating the same stuff in 9 threads. I sometimes think the community needs a way of appointing a special commission to hear evidence, investigate facts, explore issues and bring recommendations.--Scott Mac 13:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That has been proposed before, and actually I think we even created one once, with Jimbo's approval, at Misplaced Pages:Advisory Council on Project Development. Under the current circumstances, I remember once before ArbCom appointed a few individuals who had volunteered to help resolve the contentious issue of naming regarding the various "Macedonias". Maybe we could start something similar here, with individuals who are interested volunteering, and later have the ArbCom and maybe a few others review the applications and select the most qualified? John Carter (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. I don't want ArbCom to expand from judiciary to executive and legislative roles. I am also skeptical of the premise that centralizing discussion will lead to better results. You can see centralized discussion at work in the 7924 comments to a news story on Yahoo - it doesn't work. Allowing conversations to split up in the way they do naturally here is actually a far more advanced fractal structure for discussion, which allows small groups to come to limited consenses that then pass to the other relevant forums for consideration. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Back to Risker's original point, "Attribution should be made either through the edit summary or (preferred) with a notice on the talk page of the article saying "versions x to y contained material directly derived from source. This material is now properly attributed as of <date>." Copyvios found in the history of the article, but not present at the time of editing, should be similarly attributed. Bottom line - copyright holders do not care about historical versions, only the ones that are currently displayed; by attributing the prior text to them, we have appropriately credited their work and have met our obligations." That theory dies the moment infringement is spotted on a Books LLC compilation or any mirror that holds an old revision. Further, we cannot meet our obligations on copyright infringement through attributions - attribution is a mean to fix plagiarism issues, or problems with text copied from a free source which requires attribution. For copyright violations, the only way to meet our obligation is total removal of the material or obtaining permission to use it.
Further, copyrighted text later edited around, expanded or replaced gradually has become an unauthorized derivative work - it's like stripping parts off a stolen car and reusing them in other cars, they remain stolen goods even if used in otherwise legally obtained automobiles. MLauba 16:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, please go read the general disclaimer (link at the bottom of every single page on the project). Neither the WMF, nor Misplaced Pages, nor its community, nor its individual editors are responsible for subsequent use of any material that appears on this project. End users are responsible for conducting their own due diligence before publishing copies of the information hosted on this site. Why do you believe that the only way to correct a copyvio is to obliterate all subsequent text? Do you realise that every single article on this entire project is a derivative work? (If it isn't, then it is out of scope.)

There is no difference between an article that is edited to remove copyvios and one that is taken down to before the copyvio occurred and then re-edited to re-include all subsequent information with proper attribution. Meanwhile, all of the attribution to the editors who included good faith information will have been vaporized, which means that the reworked article is (at minimum) plagiarised. What you are proposing is that articles that have ever had a copyvio in them must be returned to the pre-copyvio state, and then never be permitted to have any of the subsequently included information returned to them. Removal of visible copyright violations and subsequent attribution is what is needed here, not causing the project to crash down over copyright paranoia. If you're editing properly, every single article edit you make is a derivative product that could be challenged for copyright. Risker (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize that every article is a derivative work, thanks for the patronizing. There is also a distinction between an authorized derivative work and an unauthorized one, which you seem to want to ignore. As you keep ignoring the fact that attribution is not a remedy to copyright infringement. Last but not least, you're confusing information (or facts and figures which cannot be copyrighted) with their creative expression, the way they have been written down by someone else. If you're editing properly, every article is an authorized derivative product of a free or properly licensed contribution that cannot be challenged for copyright. Not a house of cards built upon property used without permission.

Last but not least, throwing around loaded terms like copyright paranoia isn't exactly helpful. I would have expected better from a sitting arb. MLauba 19:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In all of these complex discussions, I'm left wondering how we expect our child editors to get it right; it's tough even for professionals and the arbs, but we have many children editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the policies encourage in-text attribution more. Lots of editors don't like it: "John Smith argues that x, where Paul Jones has countered that y." They argue that this is tedious to read, and that it can give a false impression that only these people makes these points, whereas they might be quite common. But it protects editors from adding inadvertent plagiarism, and it tells the reader where to look for the arguments, rather than burying the information in a footnote, which could be removed by mistake during a future copyedit. SlimVirgin 19:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to MLauba, I'm sorry that I wrote in a way that came across as patronizing. In fact, I am fairly certain that most editors are unaware that Misplaced Pages is a derivative work. I do not understand why you think that putting a footnote or using quotation marks or otherwise attributing information to its original source makes an edit any more "authorized" than edits without such. Absent direct permission from the copyright holder, it's not any more authorized than one that has no attribution all. In other words, almost of our usage, whether attributed or not, is unauthorized; it falls under the aegis of fair use, whose requirement is attribution. The "creative expression" of which you speak...that's precisely one of the things that editors (particularly those working in contentious areas) routinely get in trouble with, when they are accused of misrepresenting or misinterpreting sources, which is exactly why we are seeing so much work closely paraphrasing references. SlimVirgin's example above is, sadly, precisely the sort of thing I refer to when using the expression "copyright paranoia". Risker (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My recommending in-text attribution is copyright paranoia? No, I'm very opposed to copyright paranoia and I completely agree with you on that point. I do it because I want people to know who is saying what, because it often matters that we provide the historical context, or political context, and one way to signal that is to provide the reader in the text with an intellectual structure. It's quite standard in academia to make clear in the text who you're following. It's not connected to copyright, but to intellectual honesty, a related but separable issue. SlimVirgin 20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, SlimVirgin; I've seen other editors give a more "CP" reason, but I can see you are coming from an entirely different perspective. It is very interesting to see how different editors wind up at the same place when trying to resolve different concerns. Risker (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear to me how the content of the Grace Sherwood article contained copy violations. As I understand it, the term "derivative work" in the art world for example, means a complete work with some derivation that comes out of another complete work. So a Chagall painting that is unmistakably Chagall but with some slight change that maintains the overall sense of Chagall, say another figure added, might be considered derivative. But a painting that uses the same colour as Chagall did, but which cannot be clearly identified with a Chagall painting, doesn't look like a Chagall, would not be derivative.This "Mona Lisa" is a derivative of a Michelangelo work. This Rubenspainting painting, Prometheus Bound is not, although Rubens used Michelangelo's work to inform his own painting, and the influence is felt but the work is not clearly "like" a Michelangelo An encyclopedia is meant to collect information on multiple works/sources, but no article could be considered derivative of a source, say a newspaper unless it unmistabely looks and read in total like that source... not a few lines but in total it is clearly derivative of the entire newspaper article. Total and complete seem like key words here. As an academic, using sources and quoting them is a standard practice. Paraphrasing is common...all is acceptable with attribution. None of this is considered derivative work. If I look at the Grace Sherwood article in total, I don't see a clear relationship to a source. I don't see the article as New York Times with a slight change so that the Times article is clearly the dominant factor in the entire article ... For starters that's impossible since the article itself is created on a bed of multiple sources. How could a Misplaced Pages article be considered derivative of multiple sources as I understand derivative. How would that look or read. Mind boggling if not impossible.

Is it possible we are using derivative in two different ways. In terms of copy vio I don't see a derivative work. I see a work with some text very close to the sources and in some cases identical to the sources. Attribution to the source is there but in many cases that the text is actually quoted is not. Derivative can also be used in an everyday sense to mean something that came from something else. So, most Misplaced Pages articles are definitely derivative in the everyday sense, but not in the larger copyvio sense. If we are using derivative in the copy vio sense to mean that all of our articles must contain no clear sense of the source at all... We aren't as Risker suggests going to have an encyclopedia.

Maybe I'm missing something here, and maybe someone has a better sense of this than I do.(olive (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

I think you don't have a very clear understanding of "derivative work". That's not surprising, since few people have, and even courts are struggling to define the concept. But what is certain is that reuse of small parts of a work can be and often is sufficient. If I e.g. cut apart two of my favourite movies, Twelve Angry Men and Inherit the Wind, and put the parts together as a 20 minute vignette telling a different story, that vignette is a derivative work of both of the original movies. Less abstract, Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid is derivative of about 19 older movies, none of which is used in entirety, or anything close to it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The new movie you create movie is derivative because it is clearly recognizable as parts of both movies. The originals are not lost in the new movie, and I suspect that if you if you tried to "sell" the movie you'd end up in court. Many plays and movies are derivative (everyday use of the word) of other movies but the line between where a play is close enough to the original to require permission and must be attributed to use and where its not is tricky . At 19 influences, Dead man Wear Plaid probably has little that is recognizable from other movies...I think the issue has to do with an overall quality and recognizability to the source/ movie/ play /artwork rather than tracing the small parts, and that's the issue here too. Actually I'm somewhat familiar with copy vios on art work... but whether that applies here or not is another issue. Thanks for you help on this.(olive (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

I agree if I understand Slim Virgin correctly, that academic honesty means using content within some context of the larger source. This also creates a better read. The back and forth of one tiny bit of information countered by another on contentious articles often with no context may be the result of a desire to find a POV balance point but it generally doesn't help create and interesting and sometimes even understandable article.(olive (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

I think that there are times when we should say that "John Smith argues that" in the text, but only when we're describing expressions of opinion, (for example, I've come to think a version of this should nearly always be done when citing editorials about living persons). Still, inline references exist for a reason, to remove this burden, and editors who carelessly remove sources need to be persuaded not to do so - which should be easier to do with an inline reference, since its removal should be detectable by computer.

We should remember that Misplaced Pages once embraced and greatly benefitted by wholesale plagiarism of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, done without consent, with skimpy attribution, and only legal because the U.S. declines to enforce perpetual copyright. We know that this was less reliable than freshly written text, and eventually nearly all of it had to be purged, but frontier ethics applied. But Misplaced Pages still has frontiers - little stubs, poorly written articles — and there are still situations where banning mere plagiarism, as opposed to copyright violation, would actually be detrimental. Wnt (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement in the very strongest possible terms with Wnt's position

I've been content to let this discussion go on here without me, but I just caught up with reading it and I wanted to express in the strongest possible terms my absolute and total rejection of Wnt's position here, completely and in total without any reservations of any kind. Plagiarism is extremely unethical and absolutely grounds for dismissal from the project. We should reject it with every fiber of our being. His remarks, particularly regarding the situation with the 1911 Britannica, suggest to me that he doesn't even know the meaning of the word, nor even the history of that aspect of Misplaced Pages's history. I did not want my silence here to be in any way viewed as agreement, and so I am speaking out very clearly: plagiarism is wrong and I absolutely will not tolerate it.

Nothing about my position implies that we can't take a thoughtful and reasonable approach to the definition of plagiarism, nor that we should not proceed as always with justice and compassion when there is a violation. Just as we sometimes let people come back to Misplaced Pages after vandalism or sockpuppeting, just as we believe in taking a positive and supportive view of human nature in other contexts, we don't need to go on any kind of draconian and silly witchhunt. But neither does that mean we should tolerate or condone destructive and unethical attitudes towards scholarship.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the second paragraph is barking up the wrong tree - blocks for copyright or plagiarism are extremely rare when compared to other causes and are normally limited to repeat offenders who refuse to get the point. What currently is a matter of contention is how far cleanup of copyvios (not plagiarism) has to go. The schools of thought here are mostly:

1. Edit infringing text out of the live article, do nothing else
2. Edit infringing text out of the live article, attribute the source of the copied material in an edit summary
3. Revert to the last known non-infringing version, delete intermediary revisions where practical and start over, because every expansion upon copyvio text is an unauthorized derivative and has to go.

I'd appreciate your view on that specific area. I'll also note, for full disclosure, that the current cleanup practice at WP:CP matches the third approach above, one that I not only endorse but also pushed for (see eg. WP:Cv101). MLauba 17:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a guideline: WP:PLAGIARISM. I think the section "Addressing the editor involved" needs to be strengthened substantially. Anyone who edits on[REDACTED] ought to be assumed to know what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. If that assumption proves to be false, editing privileges ought to be suspended until the editor can show that it has become true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd really love if people commenting here could make an effort to understand that there's a difference between a copyvio and plagiarism. Plagiarism that isn't a copyvio at the same time can be fixed through attribution. My question was specifically aimed at dealing with the bigger problems of copyright infringement. MLauba 21:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe standard conventions don't always work for an online encyclopedia. What if, in cases where the source pretty much nails it as far as phrasing goes (I'm talking about a sentence or two, not entire sections), could we possibly hyperlink the text in question directly to the source for attribution? It would at least indicate that we are aware of the copied text, and are making an effort to attribute it.The Eskimo (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, attribution is always a good idea. Plagiarism is never the right thing to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a very unrealistic scenario and a very odd proposed solution. Hans Adler 20:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to propose a solution to the problem rather than debating what is plagiarism. I'd rather not see a Wiki that looks like: "Journal X reported, "Thomas Jefferson was born in 17XX." Notable historian, John Doe, notes that "Jefferson was the third President of the United States." Collegiate text book publisher, Knowitall, Inc, included in the 7th edition of their recent textbook, "Jefferson was the principal author of the declaration of independence." The Eskimo (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no debate on what constitutes plagiarism. Plagiarism is passing off someone's work as your own. The "debate" comes from the fact that most people confuse plagiarism with copyright infringement, the latter being the use of non-free material without permission. MLauba 21:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you in part, but I think the confusions often run deeper than that. One confusion is about copyright violation versus plagiarism - two different things (though related). Another confusion is about important stylistic matters and best practice, about which there can be reasonable disagreement, and which can be done very poorly or very well versus plagiarism. If there is attribution, there is no plagiarism, full stop. If the attribution isn't done as well as it should have been, but someone can easily find the source, and there is no passing off or pretense that the work is one's own, that's something that should be improved without question, but it is absolutely wrong to call that sort of thing plagiarism. Plagiarism is a form of lying, of pretending, of fraud upon the reader. Attribution is the opposite: it is being honest about where you got something.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There is another element of confusion around attribution. Current consensus is that when we copy text from a public domain or otherwise reusable source and make it part of the article, it's not normally enough to cite the source as a reference. There must also be a clear hint that we have incorporated text as well as ideas. We usually use templates such as Template:1911 for that purpose. I think there is no legal requirement for this, and we could replace this practice with a general disclaimer that some of our text may be lifted from some of the free sources which it cites. But that's not how we are officially doing this at the moment, and I think that for various reasons our current practice makes sense. Hans Adler 18:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In-text attribution is always a good option if you're having to paraphrase a source closely: "According to the BBC," or "The historian John Smith argued that ..." SlimVirgin 21:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right. And notice one detail... it's perfectly ok to say "According to the BBC..." with a link (or proper description) of where the BBC said it, even if we also happen to know that journalist John Smith wrote it on behalf of the BBC. It is generally better to attribute to the exact journalist (and depending on the context, it can be extremely important to do so, for example with opinion columnists!), but it is not plagiarism to get it not quite right.

One problem I have seen is a debasing of the meaning of the term plagiarism by overusing it to the point of absurdity. When someone claims that text, fully attributed to a source that anyone can look up, is plagiarized, that's just wrong, and it obscures the very real moral problem of people trying to pass off other people's work as their own. Even in cases where the attribution is done poorly, as long as there is attribution, there is no plagiarism - just bad style or bad writing. It is the moral crime of pretending that someone else's work is your own which amounts to plagiarism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Our guideline is fine. Plagiarized text is never acceptable anywhere, and our guideline reflects that standard. However to plagiarize may be deliberate or not, and our guideline suggests that editors who have created plagiarized text be notified and asked to fix the problem. Plagiarism is not understood by or obvious to everyone and plagiarized text can be missed for lots of reasons. It is repeated and deliberate plagiarism that is a concern in terms of editor behaviour once an editor has been made aware that what they are doing is a problem. I don't believe that an editor who has plagiarized text be "shown the door", but I do, however, believe that editors who continue to plagiarize be blocked or banned. As a professor if I have a very good student in whose work I find plagiarized text, I'd first make sure the student knows what plagiarism is, ask them why they plagiarized and based on that answer, I'd probably ask them if they'd prefer to fix the problem or take a failing grade. I have to assume there's some explanation for the text that is not obvious, because I respect the student's history. I've seen text added by an experienced editor who knows very well what plagiarized text is, but I'm 100% sure that editor did not intend to plagiarize. (And that editor almost always disagrees with me :o)). Its an easy fix to notify him and have him fix the problem and it warns him to be more careful. Plagiarism has a nasty smell attached to it, but we have to make sure we don't confuse the smell with errors made by the editor for reasons that may not be obvious. I think collaboration means we help each other, learn from each other, and use the door out for editors who don't play well with others, or deliberately harm the encyclopedia. We all make errors every day here, that's how we learn. If we want an encyclopedia where there are no mistakes made then we'd better employ professionals and forget the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Don't mean to sound preachy but I think there are simpler ways of dealing with this issue than what happened, with no disrespect or blame in any way thrown at anyone dealing with this.(olive (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

No formal action was taken in regard to Rlevse, due to his hasty departure. But if he had stayed he would have had to answer for a pattern of plagiarism that extends into at least several articles that he submitted for special attention. One instance of plagiarism by a new editor should be treated gently. Serial plagiarism by an experienced editor requires a stronger response.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC

...and conversely and editor with a long of history of service would have deserved a chance to explain. This is far from black and white and oversimplification in terms of judgement can lead to more mistakes. My comment by the way was not so much about this recent situation as it was a response to comments about the guideline although Rlevse's situation is certainly in my mind and informed my thinking. (olive (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

Rlevse was asked to explain and he replied with uncivil remarks before leaving. In most cases, editors accused of plagiarism either deny it or apologize for it, and there's no enforcement. Only the most egregious and unrepentant editors have been blocked. Although evidence of plagiarism has been presented in many ArbCom cases, I can find only two in which plagiarism was mentioned in the "principles" and none in which there was a finding that plagiarism had occurred. The ArbCom does not consider it a serious issue, judging by their decisions. I think that's regrettable.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse said early on in this situation, if I remember correctly, that the content was attributed so it wasn't plagiarism. He as well admitted his great strength is not the writing of articles which is why he asked for help in preparing the Grace Sherwood article for FA approval. Being accused of plagiarism when you don't believe you have plagiarized, and I don't see anywhere where he did not attribute text, would probably make any one feel a little testy. And his one testy comment is a stretch in terms of the above "uncivil remarks". The guideline clearly states that an accusation of plagiarism is a serious accusation and editors should be approached with care when plagiarism is suspected. This wasn't done so a little testiness is forgivable. As well at least one of the so called "plagiarized material" is a list and its hard to see how else that text could be written. Jimbo's comment clarifies for me at least the discrepancy I saw in the guideline, how plagiarism is generally defined-as theft, and in what has been called plagiarism in this case. I feel this has been not just badly handled, hopefully with the best of intentions, but wrong from beginning to end. While Rlevse may not be the best writer around as he admits, that he deliberately set out to steal another's work and harm the encyclopedia seems an absurd accusation.(olive (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

It's a difficult issue because Wikipedians are not professional writers, yet we insist that editors closely follow the sources but not too closely, which requires a skill in summarizing that can take a long time to develop. It's complicated further by the fact that editors often remove "John Smith argued," and citations get lost in the shuffle, and we also want to avoid quote farms. So while I'm not defending plagiarism or copyvios, looking at the context is important. SlimVirgin 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but according to the ArbCom, there has never been a single instance of plagiarism on Misplaced Pages worth mentioning in a case. I don't know whether they find the allegations too difficult to prove or too unimportant to bother with. Since WP:PLAGIARISM is simply a guideline, not a policy, it may be the latter.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should be tough where it's clear it's plagiarism. But I remember you said a long time ago that the best Wikipedians were in effect stenographers. I think it's difficult to ask people to be stenographers, but not really, and without training. Add to that the various wikicups, and the DYK business of it having to be a new article or 5 x increased, and you get a pressure that really lends itself to this situation. SlimVirgin 23:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that, but if I did perhaps I was plagiarizing the words of an other editor. ;) It looks like Rlevse did get caught up in the DYK/FA excitement, and cut corners to write his articles. Imagine how it must affect less scrupulous editors.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not policy? Peculiar... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That was me plagiarizing you, in fact. :) But seriously we face issues other writers don't, because we're expected to stick so closely to the sources. Professional writers have to be able to do that, but they don't fill their working lives with it. We do. Stick close enough to the sources so you don't get shouted at; not so close that you're accused of copyright violations. And don't be adding "Smith said, Jones argued" every five minutes or people get annoyed. It's not easy! SlimVirgin 01:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I've never really liked the whole DYK process, and this is a perfect example of what can happen when editors get out of control with it. DYKs and FA's are increasingly being required for a successful RFA, with editors who are perfectly qualified in every other area of Misplaced Pages being denied the mop simply because they didn't meet someone's "10 FA requirement" or "5 DYK requirement." If and Arb can become caught up in this, anyone can. Ronk01 talk 01:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree that plagiarism implies intent...or at least laziness? There are only so many musical notes that can be played in so many sequences, that every musical rerfain will eventually be played before. Room full of monkeys composing Shakespeare, etc. Such it is with language.The Eskimo (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

English Misplaced Pages did plagiarise EB1911 en-mass by not properly attributing the authors. John Vandenberg 03:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That is absolutely false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The community has learned some lessons from the whole EB1911 thing. I'm glad to say that the standards are rising.   Will Beback  talk  11:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Random IP's quick question

What is the official name of the mobile skin you use here? 173.70.141.225 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Mobile access DC T•C 05:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't helpful. I want to know the .css/.js file for the wikipedia-mobile skin (whatever you call it). 173.70.141.225 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Try visiting http://en.m.wikipedia.org/ in a normal web browser and viewing the page source. I am pretty sure the main stylesheet in use is http://en.m.wikipedia.org/stylesheets/default.css, but I am not that great with web languages, so I am not sure. J.delanoy_adds 20:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry Dudley et all

Just a note to say I posted on the Jimmy Wales talk page but more specific search starting with J Dudley took a little more time to find

There are various UK sites with family trees but most need payment (damn those currency requirements !) but try this as you can also see emigrations details (and it is free lol) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Highlighting problematic sentences

I've noticed on Italian wiki they have shading over sentences which are unsourced/problematic. See it:Donato Manfroi. Do you think this would be a good idea as it might encourage people to source sentences needing sources and when reading the article it would highlight the information that may be questionable as part of our goal to be as accurate as possible?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like it, yes. It's probably worth discussing. One thing I would wonder about is whether it is actually meaningful to end users. This is the sort of thing that I think we could take to the Foundation's usability team for testing... although of course that would take some time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What I like about it is that it highlights the entire problematic sentences which have been identified more vigorously rather than just a note at the end so as the reader is reading it they know to be wary and that the whole sentence/paragraph is problematic. If the problematic sentences are identified in every article and shaded effectively it gives more coordination in my view as to what is OK and what is not in the encyclopedia and gives a somewhat bolder approach in which we acknowledge it needs improving. Sometimes tags at the top of the article or end of a paragraph do not point the reader to exactly what needs to be done . Ultimately the goal of course is for every article to be well sourced and accurate. Having parts shaded which may be undesirable to many may actually have the effect of propelling more editors to resolve the problem as they want it to look better. Its worth a trial at least in my view, although I'm not sure about pink, I'd go for a light blue personally, but pink might just have the effect of getting more editors to resolve problem and remove it... I like it and it really stood out to me when I viewed it on it wiki. i'd like to see this placed on a trial period. In my view any part of the encyclopedia which is unverified and problematic should be shaded which would be more coordinated I think and identify the text in every article which needs work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I like it too. Nothing is more frustrating than a tag on a long article and then trying to find out what the tagger specifically found wrong...Pale pink (or maybe cream) is a good warning colour. I actually think it might be a good thing for casual readers to note. I think if it draws them in to actually editing and improving an article that is a great thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes if you think of the pink as a pale red then you could see it as a warning color. Its a great tool I think and could be used to identify all parts of an article which need rewriting or are unsourced. I personally would much rather actual sentences and paragraphs were highlighted instructing the reader exactly what needs to be improved/sourced than great ugly general tags at the top of the article. Whether the shading would replace them or not or if they would coexist would need discussion. Of course the reader needs warning at the top that an article contains info which is unverified but as DDG says they can be quite obtrusive and downright ugly at times especially multiple templates stacked at the top.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cs showed me this. I also like it. Considering the subdued colors they use, the result is a good deal less obtrusive than some of our tags. This seems partly due to their relative sparse use of tagging on the article page altogether, another example we could learn from). DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I like it in principle, but will readers understand that having most of our biographies entirely rendered on a pink background isn't just an odd stylistic choice? — Coren  14:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• {{cn-span}} now exists. Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit belated, but adding my voice to the list - I like this idea. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Roving teams of BLP editors should be banned

In my opinion, in order to avoid the appearance of biased editing of BLP'ers, the practice of 2, 3 , 4 or more of the same editors targeting the pages of certain prominent living people should be banned. This could be done by a rule, say, that no more than a certain number of entries (to be determined) may be made by the same editors, especially when they appear to be working as a team. Living notables, currently discouraged from editing on the page referencing them, have every reason to be fed up with this kind of thinly disguised discrimination, and there has to be a way to put a stop to it. Consensus should be required from a larger group of independent writers. 76.175.255.53 (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in. JohnClarknew (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not with "teams" (which actually do not exist as such, I sincerely hope) as with individuals with specific axes to grind who hone them on BLPs of those they favor with refusal to allow any negative information at all, no matter how well-sourced, and, more commonly, insertion of any scandal or tidbit of negative rumor or innuendo into the BLPs of those they oppose. See User:Collect/BLP for the positions of one POV-pusher (not my positions!) (now, thankfully, banned as a sock master). I am a firm believer that BLPs should be written as conservatively as possible, even if it means leaving out "juicy stuff." Collect (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Adminship: still not a big deal?

I might have missed it, but the last time I could see a discussion about your views on adminship not being a big deal was back in June 2008.

Do you still feel that it is not a big deal - or do the current responsibilities of admins mean that it now is a big deal?

As you know, your "no big deal" quote crops up from time to time on user pages and at RfA - but the community seems to think that perhaps it is now a big deal - that things have changed a lot since 2003!

Personally, I don't think that it is: I think that if people watched me being an admin, then they'd be forced to conclude:

1. It really is a janitorial post!
2. It is not exciting on the whole - and can be stressful from time to time (although I think I've been lucky, not getting much abuse)

Also, what do you think of the way that RfA appears to be going: if the candidate doesn't have a dozen GAs and half a dozen FAs to their credit, they won't make a good admin? Personally, I am not a great article creator (I have 2 GAs, with one which I am - slowly - working towards FA status), but I would like to think that I am not doing too bad as an admin during the last 9 months despite this!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that comment of Jimmy has already been misinterpreted to death often enough. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong but I remember him explaining, more than once, that the "no big deal" applies to putative status of being an administrator: it doesn't make you any more "elite" or "better" than any other editor. The actual technical abilities of admins have always been a big deal (blocking people and deleting pages on a Wiki are Heavy Stuff) which is why it wasn't just possible to give them to just anyone and it's super-duper-extra important to not misuse them. — Coren  13:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree - as an admin, I am no more "important" than any other editor - in fact, it could be argued that as I am not a high-content contributor, then I am less important than many prolific editors (registered or IP)! I certainly have a lot of respect for people who can create many articles - I am proud of the two significant articles which I have created, but I am not a great content-adder, just bits and pieces here and there. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously not everybody agrees. Recently I saw a discussion in which some people had obviously misunderstood things, was going to comment there to contribute the other side of the coin, but realised that it was a discussion section reserved exclusively to admins. Even Arbcom has been taking these things quite seriously recently, and I can't really blame anybody because it's an attempt to solve a real problem. Yet when admin bits are required to comment in a discussion that really crosses a line for me. In that particular case I just stayed quiet rather than put my comment elsewhere for everybody to ignore it. But if this happens more often my frustration is likely to reach the point where I want to do something against it. Hans Adler 14:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious - where was this "admin-only" discussion? I'm not aware of any such boards, although I may be wrong. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE has rules about sections where only admins can post.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) WP:AE. The "Result" sections are routinely used by admins for discussion about the merits, thus excluding non-admins. As I said there is a legitimate reason (significant disruption from unstructured contributions by involved editors in the past). But it's a clear symptom of our emerging caste system. Hans Adler 15:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! I wasn't aware of that, as I've never had to post at AE. But as you say, that's for a legitimate reason. If you feel that you need to respond to an admin's comment there, I'd guess that the best venue is either on the admin's talk page or via email? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the reasons, but it's not exactly a janitorial operation.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent) The point remains, really, even if the exact list of what admins do has expanded over the years (mostly because the list of things to do has so expanded). Admins don't get to block editors because they are better, but because they have been minimally vetted by the community as sane enough to not go on a rampage. Enforcement of arbitration remedies is an expansion of that — not by virtue of admin superiority but by the fact that it's "close enough". — Coren  16:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Not taking into account the fact that RfA has gone completely batshit insane and that they made such a big effing deal of adminship; that's another problem.