Talk:Duquesne Spy Ring/AfD debate (result:speedy keep)

Note: Now that K. Kellogg-Smith's AfD matter has been resolved, I propose moving the related portions of the discussion to an archive page. Ctatkinson 13:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Note: I've nominated this article (May 16th) for deletion for being a violation of the first principle of Wikipedia's "Five Pillars", i.e., this article is non-encyclopedic. Although it's an interesting article, it was actually written by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (with slight edits by the author). As such, this article is a (verbatim) copy of a primary source document. See Five Pillars and Don't include copies of primary sources as the basis for my nominating this article for deletion. Wikipedia's administrators will decide whether to retain or to delete this article. Alternatively they might suggest changes that can be made before the article can be retained. To log whether you concur or oppose my nomination of this article for deletion, click on the interlink in the AfD message box, or go to the AfD log for May 17th, at Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 17. For your guidance in discussing the article, see Guide to deletion and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. K. Kellogg-Smith 01:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD close of Duquesne Spy Ring
I have looked over the discussions on the talk pages, and I stand fast to my decision.

To begin- the article is legally not plagiarism at all. It is released under the public domain (to be specific, the Freedom of Information Act), which means the article is free content. Since no one person "claims" the information (thus "public domain"), no plagiarism is present. We are on safe ground as long the sources are attributed, which has already been accomplished.

I speedy kept the AfD because your basis of argument is invalid (no plagiarism is involved, but you say plagiarism is involved) Also, in the dicussions on the talk page, it seems that most users oppose your viewpoint on this matter.

In response to not including copies of primary sources, I believe you should also read the ignore all rules policy. The creator of the article transcluded the document to Wikipedia very well, thus my decision to "speedy keep" the article.

I respect your personal opinion on ethics, but there is nothing legally wrong in this matter. Sr13 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

From the Village pump (policy)
Is it okay under IAR to create a Wikipedia article which is a verbatim copy of an identical article appearing on a U.S. government website, i.e., a website in the public domain? A recently added (May 5, 2007) Wikipedia article is a Wikified, word for word copy &mdash; both text and photos &mdash; of a 14-page article which appears on the FBI’s website at http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/spyring/spyring.htm, titled Federal Bureau of Investigation, Famous Cases: 33 Members of the Duquesne Spy Ring. The recent Wikipedia article that was copied from that FBI website is Duquesne Spy Ring. The Wikipedia article originally carried the {USGovernment} template, but did not cite the current FBI article as the article’’s source. The word for word copying of the entire text and photos of a 14-page article in the public domain and inserting that copied article in Wikipedia seems to me (technically and ethically if not in fact) to be plagiarism, even though the work copied is in the public domain. If it is considered to be plagiarism, what can be done about effectively flagging readers that the copied article is a direct copy from another source? I think the text of the {USGovernment} template isn't adequate for this situation. K. Kellogg-Smith 02:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not plagarism, so long as it's indicated that the text came from somewhere, and was not just originally written. It's best not to do verbatim copies for NPOV reasons, but so long as the source is given, it's not terrible. -Amarkov moo! 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the standard text of the {USGovernment} template isn't adequate for this situation. Rather than say "This article incorporates text from ...", it would be much more accurate to state something along the lines of "The original version of this article was copied from ..." so that readers are clearly informed of the extent of the copying. To list the FBI website as a "source" clearly understates the copying. In the context of an article or paper, this would be akin to copying passages without showing them in quotes and merely listing the source in the bibliography. Almost everyone would consider that plagiarism. -- DS1953 talk 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This bothers me... even if it is not plagiarism (ie even if we give credit to the cite where it is copied from) wikipedia should not simply copy another site. We should write original articles based on the information obtained in reliable secondary sources.  I could understand basing the bulk of this article's information on the FBI site, but we should at least paraphrase it instead of copying it.  I would love to flag it for improvement in some way, but I am not sure if there are any tags that apply. Blueboar 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, the article always referenced the FBI as the source of substantial content and no claim to the contrary was ever made -- in the original document a URL was provided and the reference was: "Much of this article comes from FBI documents and photos released in 1985 under the freedom of information act and in the public domain." What does seem to be controversial is the quantity of public information re-used in this Wikipedia article. However, it is not illegal, unethical, and even uncommon for a private entity to re-issue and re-sell public information, sometimes adding value and sometimes not (e.g., National Weather Service reports and forecasts). Adding the FBIs Duquesne Spy Ring content to Wikipedia enhances the visability of an interesting topic (not controversial is that many people find this article interesting) and it is in keeping with the FBI's mission of disemminating non-classified information as a public good. Paraphrasing is the wrong approach for public content that already stands well on its own (e.g., even though a substantial portion of Wikipedia's U.S. Constitution relies on the original source, nobody would suggest that a substantially paraphrased version for Wikipedia would be more appropriate). In my view, it is better to apply an Open Source standard, like Open source governance, to all public content. Ctatkinson 10:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with transcluding public domain content into WP, as long as it is done intelligently. There have been problems with mindless transclusion of out of date sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. But as long as it is done with reasoable editorial judgement, there should not be a problem.


 * In this case, the FBI is an authoritative source for this type of information, and using the material in it's original form is appropriate. In fact, changing the content would need to be done very carefully, since the original form may have had substantial editorial review from experts in the subject area.


 * U.S. Government works are not copyrighted for good reason, and are intended to be re-used. Usually the agencies publishing material ask to be credited, and this is good editorial practice, but there is generally no legal requirement to do so. The USGovernment template gives sufficient credit--further explanation can be given on the talk page (it's probably also a good idea to note the transclusion in the edit summary as well).


 * I have been transcluding a lot of useful information from U.S. Government sources, including images and text. These are a valuable resource for WP, and should be used to the fullest extent. Sometimes I paraphrase where appropriate, and other times I take large blocks of text nearly verbatim. Usually the text does need some touch up to make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example: removing second person statements, and removing or recasting recommendations. You also need to watch for NPOV issues where government policy or interests may be reflected in the content. This is generally not a problem for technical subjects, but may be an issue in other areas.


 * Using this material is not plagiarism. The material was compiled at public expense, and is intended to benefit the public. The U.S. taxpayers generously share this information with the world. To refuse this gift would be foolish. Dhaluza 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In this specific case, I am perfectly happy with transcluding information from the FBI site. Editors considering transcluding other text and images from U.S. government sites need to bear in mind, however, that some material may be false or misleading. Sometimes politicians lie. --Eastmain 19:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with verifiability: other users come in later and edit bits. So the notice at the bottom should more truthfully read, "Parts of this article text are taken from X, but we've no idea which parts". Whether X is the 1911 Britannica, a US government report, or anything else. Far better to either (a) quote part of X, and mark it as a quote, or (b) just include a link to X. IMHO, copying text from another site, even a public domain one, and not explicitly marking it as quoted, should be officially discouraged. Peter Ballard 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with Ballard. It makes no difference whether the text was originally written in the public domain and transcuded to WP, or if it was originally written on WP. This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" so the problem is the same either way. Your suggestion to quote the material, even if it's the whole article, does not work. Material from the 1911 Britannica needs lots of editing to make it useful, so quoting the original is pointless (and unnecessary since it is available online). This is actually the beauty of the wiki--we can improve the public domain record. Dhaluza 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with Dhaluza :) There IS a difference between a public domain source and an edit by you or me. The former carries some authority, so does not need its facts cited. The latter is unverifiable (and hence essentially worthless) without a citation. Take a look at one of the (many) uncited statements Duquesne Spy Ring. How do you know its source is the FBI, and not some teenaged Wikipedia editor? You don't. Similar for the many articles with text cut-and-pasted from 1911 Britannica. In other words, treating a public domain source as a Wikipedia editor is doing a great disservice to the public domain source - you're reducing it's authority to the level of an anonymous WP editor. Besides, the place for public domain sources is Wikisource, not Wikipedia. I stand by my suggestion that dropping public domain source into Wikipedia, without marking it as quotation, should be officially discouraged. Not for reasons of plagiarism, but for reasons of Verifiability and Citing sources. Peter Ballard 02:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With a long article like the one cited, attributing edits can get sticky. Generally any changes need to be footnoted to the additional sources. The wiki does provide an edit history, so if someone wanted to untie the Gordian knot, it is theoretically possible. I disagree that this makes the material unverifable--you just have to look up the source and compare. This is true for any WP article of substantial length, and is only made more difficult by a synthesis of multiple refrences. So I think your point completely misses the mark.


 * What I mean, of course, is it's impossible to work out from the article itself. Of course you can go through the history and work out which parts come from the public domain source (or find the source itself and compare) - I've done it myself and it's a right royal pain in the ****. Everything should be cited to begin with, then there is no problem. The technical articles you give are a little different because they are mainly explanations of concepts, rather than facts that need citations. Even then, they could be cited better, because the sources for some of the statements are not clear, and the problem will only get worse if/when it gets substantially edited by multiple editors. Also, I fail to see how verification is "made more difficult by a synthesis of multiple references." An article from multiple sources must have multiple references. It's the lack of multiple references which causes verifiability problems. Peter Ballard 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I use a lot of public domain sources in articles. For articles of reasonable length of a few paragraphs, there really is no problem in practice as far as I can see (for example see: Machmeter). Often I do add additional sourcing to fill in the gaps or give context with inline citation footnotes (for example see: Radio acoustic sounding system). Dhaluza 10:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely support Peter. When I came to WP, this was the thing i found the strangest, and it should never have been accepted from the start. At present, sorting out the old EB text can be approximated from the style, and the old Catholic Encyclopedia very much so. (But some modern sources from the US Dept Agriculture much less so). Not that knowing its the old EB necessarily makes it better than a recent edit--it some cases it makes it very likely to need replacing or updating, and that's what one wants to identify. Unfortunately, going back and doing this now is an enormous job. But we can certainly ask that from here on in all quotations and text from any source must be indicated and exactly sourced--and there's an excellent precedent, because we do that with illustrations--you can always tell where they came from. In cooperative editing, the individual eds. take responsibility for what they do, and this applies to putting in a quotation as much as for original composition, and it is plain not honest to avoid specifying. It may be legal, but that's only the first step. DGG 05:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that blanket dumps of public domain material without using editorial judgment is problematic. But quoting and freezing large blocks of text is not the solution. The public domain text usually needs to be edited for inclusion (that is the essence of your complaint with the existin EB articles). For example the terminology many need to be changed to reflect a worldview, and some concepts previously explained outside the block may need to be explained inside the block. But beyond this type of normal editing, rewriting technical material by a non-expert can be problematic, and should be avoided. My understanding of the technical subject is probably less complete than the authors of the public domain work, so I defer to their preferred form of explanation. This is analogous to a non-native speaker not fully understanding the nuance of a language and making gaffs in usage. So don't let past problems create new problems going forward. Dhaluza 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents here: public domain material is free, so we can legally do whatever we want with it. Whatever we include on Wikipedia should be up to Wikipedia standards, though, and that includes sourcing. So, for instance, I think we should either be using the public domain document as a starting point or as a reference, but not both. If what's being copied is a document that isn't thoroughly sourced, we can use it but should make an effort to source all the statements in it. But I do think it would be bad practice to merely source a copy of X by citing X as a source: if we're doing that, we should be quoting from X rather than duplicating it. Mango juice talk 13:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Article is a verbatim copy lifted from the FBI's website.
In this article, the interlink to "Paul Fehse" shows in red, indicating that the interlink failed. I Googled "Paul Fehse", and the first hit listed was the Federal Bureau of Investigation's website. If you'll click on the link you'll see that the page Google returned is titled "Famous cases: 33 Members of the Duquesne Spy Ring". After reading through the FBI's article, it's clear (to me at least) that this Wikipedia article, titled "Duquesne Spy Ring" is a verbatim copy of the FBI's article — photos and all. The author of this article has made minor edits to the FBI's article, but it is nonetheless almost in its entirety a direct, verbatim copy of an original article from a source the author doesn't cite. I believe a reference to the FBI's article is essential here, so I've added a "See also" section and inserted the link I noted above. K. Kellogg-Smith 03:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the USGovernment attribution template. For the time being I've commented out the line that said "Much of this article comes from FBI documents and photos released in 1985 under the freedom of information act and in the public domain -- http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/duquesne_frederick_interesting.htm", but if people think it's necessary in addition to the attribution template, then go ahead and reinsert it. - Gobeirne 04:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The text you commented out was a link to the original FBI typewriter text report titled "Frederick Duquesne Interesting Case Writeup", dated March 12, 1985, and released by the FBI (no date given) under the Freedom of Information Act. I don't believe that document was the source you used for your article.  The link is historically interesting; so go ahead and restore that link if you think it will help your case.
 * I edited your USGovernment template message to restore the link that I had previously added to the FBI website source text and photos, and for the reasons I noted above. Your article is very well written and very informative, but I believe the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation is due full credit for its authorship. K. Kellogg-Smith 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't write it - it's mostly the work of Ctatkinson - Interesting stuff! :) - Gobeirne 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I like your addition of the USGovernment template -- it better captures the attribution. However, the source of the article was always attributed, and in fact, the source document for much of the text is the FBI typewriter text report I originally attributed (instead of searching Google for other copies, and there are many out there both in print and on the Web that are not well attributed, read the typewritten report and compare!).  I have therefore restored the correct URL for attribution in the article. Also, while large sections of text come from the FBI photos and documents, other sources have also been incorpated into the article (particularly the background on Fritz Duquense) and I hope much more will come. Ctatkinson 05:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To avoid reader misunderstanding about the {USGovernment} citation to your article, I took the liberty of commenting out your reversion to your original [USGovernment] citation. I don't believe you accurately cited the source of your article by citing the FBI's March 1985 report.  That report is text only, and has no photos. &nbspYour article on the other hand is (excluding the brief references you added to the FBI's text)is a duplicate of the article that's currently on the FBI's website.  Since your article is more recent than the FBI's article, and includes the same photos and their placement in the text, an assumption can be made that you copied the FBI's 14-page article verbatim, with very slight additions.  FYI, I posed a question about plagiarism in the Village Pump, Policy section, as "#35. When does verbatim copying from a government website become plagiarism?".  If you'd like you can read and respond to my question there about your article and your original citation, and also read/respond to the current answers.  K. Kellogg-Smith 01:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your comment has less to do with the content and more to do with the look and feel. I have no qualms about referencing both sources, but the original source of the content must be included -- I will add both references to the article.  However, you also use the term plagiarism, and I here strongly disagree.  Wiktionary defines plagiarism as "the copying of someone's ideas, text or other creative work and claiming it as one's own ."  The article clearly references the FBI as the source of a substancial amount of the content and no claim to the contrary was ever made -- in original document the reference said: "Much of this article comes from FBI documents and photos released in 1985 under the freedom of information act and in the public domain."  The controversy is actually over the appropriate use of public information on Wikipedia. I believe it benefits eveyone when public informaiton is added to Wikipedia, and I will also make my views on this subject better known on Village Pump.  Thanks for the FYI. Ctatkinson 09:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully suggest you read again the article on plagiarism, and that article's discussion page (current and archived) as to what constitutes plagiarism. You might also benefit by reading the definition of plagiarism in Wiktionary.  The name of the author of FBI's 1985 document which you originally cited in your {USGovernment} citation was blacked out, but may well have been the name of the author of that report.  Blanking the name of the author of a government document is permissable under the FOI, and in my opinion would have been done in the case of the document you originally cited.  Therefore, when you contributed your article you automatically took credit for authorship of an article which I believe you plagiarized &mdash; in its entirety &mdash; from the FBI's website.  In so doing I believe you took credit for the work of another author, which by definition is plagiarism.
 * I believe you further complicated matters by engaging in "self-plagiarism" (as defined in the Wikipedia plagiarism article) when you inserted marginally related full sections of your article (again, verbatim) into several non-espionage related Wikipedia articles. For example, as a merchant seaman (Radio Officer) who had often sailed with U.S.Lines, I was very interested in the history and fate of the S.S. America, but found your self-plagiarized section to be very out of place in the body of article (cf. Wikipedia SS America (1940)).   A reference to your article should more appropriately have been made in the article's "See also" section.
 * Another concern that I have about your article is that (up to now) you have continually cited the FBI's 1985 document as your article's source instead of citing what I believe clearly to be the true source of your article, the document currently appearing on the FBI's website which is identical to your contribution.
 * Article for Deletion: I believe that Duquesne Spy Ring is an article that should be nominated as an article for deletion (AfD), and for the reasons I've cited in this discussion. In addition, I firmly believe that extensive plagiarizing  of public domain sources damages the reputation of Wikipedia, and the reputations of its many contributors. See for example the section heading "Examples of purported or actual plagiarism/Wikipedia" in the "Plagiarism" article cited previously.
 * After I make the nomination there will be an AfD discussion page where you (and others) can comment on my nomination.  After I make the nomination the Wikipedia administration will review the comments and my reasons for making the nomination, and will decide whether to delete or retain the article.  K. Kellogg-Smith 14:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've listened to your comments and tried to find constructive ways to improve the article for all to enjoy, but clearly you have an entirely different agenda in mind. I never made a claim that this was my article you continue to assert. Instead, I transcluded an already excellent, public domain article into WP format and I cited the original article. I then expanded the article in areas where I knew interesting and relevant background was missing, and others in our community have already begun to do the same.

Your views on this issue have already been adequately discussed in their entirety on the Village pump (policy). You made your assertions and the consensus viewpoint of the WP community is that: U.S. Government sources, including images and text, are a valuable resource for WP, should be used to the fullest extent, and that using the FBI material in its original form is not only appropriate, but even preferable in this case. I'm including the complete, unedited (and certainly not paraphrased) discussion in a new section on this talk page -- From the Village pump (policy) -- for all to view. Ctatkinson 02:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC) With all due respect, the Village Pump isn't the forum that will determine whether or not your article is allowable in Wikipedia. That determination will be made by Wikipedia administrators who will review the deletion forum review reasonings pro/contra article deletion after I make the nomination for AfD. See "Wikipedia:Deletion review" for the process. Any registered editor can voice whether they endorse or oppose deleting your article from Wikipedia. The administrators may also decide whether or not to transfer your article to Wikisource as an alternative to deletion. The article you contributed is your article, as shown by the accreditation to you in the article's history. You took further credit for your article when I believe you self-nominated and took credit for it as an entry for the "Did you know ..." section on Wikipedia's main page, an entry which makes you eligible for the salutory honors of Wikipedia's "triple crown". I continue believe that your citing the FOIA article was disingenuous; evidence within the body of your article supports my contention that you plagiarized your article from the source I cited, not the FOIA document that you continue to cite. Interest and enjoyment are not criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (see "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions"). My argument is that Wikipedia editors should be held to the same standards for publication as academicians and journalists. Plagiarism trivializes Wikipedia, and has the effect of turning Wikipedia into a compendium rather than an encyclopedia. Wikipedia doesn't have a policy on plagiarism. Hopefully nominating your article for deletion and the discussions that follow will cause the promulgation of such a policy to at least be considered, if not implemented. K. Kellogg-Smith 13:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are new to Wikipedia. Suffice it to say you are welcome to your opinion and I won't make an issue of your inexperience. Instead I will make one final attempt to help you better understand the princle of re-use. Start with the Brothers Grimm and Grimm's Fairy Tales articles. You will note that Disney created an empire out of Brothers Grimm's classics such as Snow White and Cinderella. In some cases a blanket statement like, "Based on the characters of Brothers Grimm" is shown somewhere on film, in the packaging, on the ride, in the books, etc, but sometimes no there is no mention of the origin (unlike this article where the FBI documents have been clearly attributed). Disney's Sleeping Beauty Castle itself is based on Neuschwanstein castle, yet I don't believe any of the Disney park maps ever reference this fact. Re-use exists in many forums in addition to Wikipedia. While this article is based on FBI documents, it will evolve over time on Wikipedia and become even better. Ctatkinson 11:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography
I came across a very recent Wikipedia article (inserted within the last few weeks) titled "Duquesne Spy Ring" which is a near verbatim copy of a 14-page article with photos that's currently on the FBI's website. I posed a question about the article on the Village Pump, policy section (#35. When does verbatim copying from a government website become plagiarism?").  Both the FBI's article and the identical Wikipedia article are linked in the text of that policy question. I have disputed the author's use of the {USGovernment} template because (a) his article is a verbatim copy of a lengthy U.S. government article, and therefore an inappropriate citation, and (b) that  U.S. government source he cited in the template is clearly not the source he used to create his Wikipedia article.  However, I haven't found any clear policy statement in Wikipedia that prohibits or even discourages extensive verbatim copying of sources in the public domain. My question here relates directly to eleven good, A-class cryptography articles from U.S. Government public domain sources than I could easily Wifify and insert verbatim in Wikipedia. I obtained all eleven publications at the National Security Agency's National Cryptologic Museum. All eleven publications are U.S. Government publications. All include the author's name, but none have copyright notices. And because they are U.S. government publications I presume them all to be in the public domain &mdash; and can be freely copied and used. If there's no real policy concerns by the Wiki administration about wholesale copying of U.S. government sources, how do members of this project feel about inserting (Wikified) verbatim U.S.government cryptologic articles in Wikipedia with only the current (and IMHO inadequate) {USGovernment} template used as a source cite at the end of each article? Do you believe it's plagiarism to do that? Or at the very least unethical? Is there some other template or flag that can be used to alert readers that such articles are direct copies from another source? Don't get me wrong. I have no intention of copying verbatim the government's articles I have in my possession, and inserting them in Wikipedia. What I'm looking for is suggestions and guidance on what to me seems to be plagiarism &mdash; the verbatim copying of U.S. government publications &mdash; and its prevention if it's considered to be an undesireable practice in Wikipedia. Any help? K. Kellogg-Smith 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion here: do it!! It's free content, it's probably a vast improvement on the articles in question, and once submitted, the articles can likely be improved by editing.  Watch out for WP:OR, though - are all those articles adequately sourced?  As long as we attribute the information to the source and state that it's public domain, we're covered, and the authors of the government stuff get proper credit because we'll attribute them (which we don't even have to do).  Personally, if I was one of those authors, I would be proud that my work was reaching as many people as possible.  However, I would be cautious in one regard: double check that the documents in question are really produced by the US Federal Government, not merely documents they have permission to display or whatever.  But yeah, if they really are public domain, I don't think there's an ethical concern.. but if you do, you could always write to the author and ask permission (not that you'd need to, if it's public domain).  I'm not sure about the tagging templates.  I suppose I would just begin with a " * This article incorporates text from Foo bar, a US Federal Government publication from the National Cryptologic Museum, which is in the public domain. " at the end of the article.  Mango juice talk 03:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

From Wikisource:Scriptorium, Question 4.12
Plagiarized Wikipedia article for inclusion in Wikisource? Moved from Wikisource talk:Scriptorium

I'm about to nominate a 4,900 word article in Wikipedia ("Duquesne spy ring") for deletion because I believe the article plagiarized an identical article on the FBI's website (see at http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/spyring/spyring.htm.). I firmly believe that Wikipedia should not be a repository for plagiarized articles. Wikipedia deletion policy suggests that in non-copyright violation AfD cases, Wikisource should be considered as an alternative location [for this challenged article] rather than deletion from Wikipedia. The author made some small additons to the original text, which could be viewed as enhancements per Wikisource policy. The chief failing of the article as it appears in Wikipedia, as I see it, is that the {USGovernment} template the author initially used to justify his plagiarism was IMHO not the true source of his article, and that secondly, the {USGovernment} template is inadequate for articles that have been extensively plagiarized. Would the author's plagiarized article be suitable for inclusion in Wikisource with only an inadequate {USGovernment} tag citation? Would Wikisource require a more explicit citation than the {USGovernment} cite? K. Kellogg-Smith 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the article as it is now is appropriate for wikisource. Its quite alright there on Wikipedia. If you are concerned that it is relying too heavily on the FBI article then the article should be improved. Try to integrate more sources, use more original language, considering changing the organization of the article a bit. This is not a copyright violation although I agree with you that wikipedia should be home to original work and not plagarism. This should be adressed in the article itself on the discussion page. The contents of an FBI webpage are not suitable for Wikisource. A previously published FBI report might be appropriate, but not just some webpage. For some guidance on this issue see Wikisource inclusion policy. --Metal.lunchbox 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your answer to my query. The Wikipedia documentation on deletion suggests that an article not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia might be suitable for inclusion in Wikisource, and you have answered my question. I'm sure the administration will make the same suggestion as you have done, and perhaps the page can be blanked until such time as the author does "de-plagiarize" his article.

I did in fact first express my concerns about the article being plagiarized on its discussion page. There the author continued to insist that the article had been taken from the text of a 1985 FBI document whose cover page stated it was an FOIA release, not the current article on the FBI's website. After several exchanges, I went to the Village Pump/Policy section and asked for opinion about the plagiarized article, providing links to both the author's article and the FBI website article. I also posed a similar question on the Cryptography portal, since I have eleven (authored) monographs released by NSA's cryptography history section that conceivably I could Wikify and copy verbatim into Wikipedia.

As you well know, plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright or copyright violations. Plagiarism is the taking of another author's work — in whole or in part — and calling it one's own. It's all about ethics and integrity.

Although there is a very definitive article on the Plagiarism in Wikipedia, the administration has no policy on contributing plagiarized articles to the encyclopedia. My belief is that if articles in Wikipedia are truly to be encyclopedic, then editors should be subject to the same editorial standard of ethics as acadamicians and journalists.

K. Kellogg-Smith 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)