User talk:68.39.174.238/Copyandpaste

On the subject of "Copying and pasting":

Most experienced (And even newbie) editors know that "copying and pasting" text from other places and dropping it into articels is a BAD idea. However there are two main reasons for this, the latter of which is frequently missed due to the former:


 * 1) Copyright
 * 2) Style

Copyright is far more concerned about then style, for obvious and correct reasons: Copyright is bright line: it exists legally. If it exists on a work, that's it: no copying.It is of FAR more external importance then style: A bad articel may get bad press; a copyrighted articel may get a legal threat or an outright lawsuit. Everyone is exposed to it: all edit screens show "Do not copy text from other websites without permission." below the action buttons, and further down: "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include the vast majority of web pages or images."

Style is dealt with by nearly all editors on all pages. Some of the lamer edit wars on WP:LAME were about minute considerations of style. However, the intersection of copying and style are frequently missed.

Copying masses of text slavishly from sources, especially without a citation!, is rather lame in the same way plagiarism (sortof) is: We use other peoples' work and it can be easily mistaken for our own.

Granted, many articels started out this way, and even such a text dump as described above can be edited by others untill it is completely different.

The other lameness engendered by this process is a result of the fact that almost all PD text is PD because of either age or Federal provenance. As a result it is usually either dated and archaic sounding, biased or of questionable neutrality, or both.

Examples:
This addition to Lightning from "The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction, Vol. 12, Issue 323" from 1828!. This text was written by (I think) Joseph Preistly, a Franklin contemporary and friend. Here is another possible danger of using such sources, they may be written by, or from a very conflicted position.

Consider this sentence:

A spire which was erecting at Philadelphia he conceived might assist him in this inquiry

Huh?! This part of the text was SO old as to be written in such an archaic construction as to appear wholly incorrect. To retain the wording, but make it at least passable modern English:

A spire which was being erected at Philadelphia he conceived might ...

While even this is disreputable. Dealing with this sentence alone, a full update produces:

Franklin thought he might be able to test his theory by using the under construction church steeple when it was completed.

While not used in an articel, this passage from the Swiss Family Robinson shows another problem with old texts:

"Quite wrong; that would not aid us at all. Patience and Reason are the two fairies, by whose potent help I hope to get our boat afloat."

Uncyclopedically flowery or pretentious language, at times framed in wholly confusing or inappropraite metaphors and conceits. This improves drastically in modern editing:

"No, that wont work. Patience and reason alone will get us afloat"

(Note that this is actually a quote and should be left intact, it's used here solely as an example of really bad old writing)