User talk:CaroleHenson/Edited version of Close Paraphrasing

Couple of comments / disclaimers
This endeavor is being taken on as 1) a means of immersion into "close paraphrasing" issues and 2) to provide information in a way that might be helpful to a new reader - and, when applicable, allow for a quick scan to the necessary information.

Because it's done by a newbie:
 * it's understood that the style approach may be subject to change
 * the content will surely be subject to input by knowledgeable individuals

It's just an initial stab / draft in an effort to help the next guy or gal have an easier time managing the info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions/comments
Hi. :) Rather than tb you, I figured I'd just talk here.

I like the changes to the lead. They aren't extensive, but are quite good.

1. Why did you move the example down? I'm not sure yet if I like that or not, and figured I'd get your take on what makes it better. :) Expanding the examples is a good idea, and I do like the side-by-side analysis.

2. The "shortcuts" boxes are not exactly the way that box is meant to be used. It actually lists shortcuts that take people to the page in question, not to other pages. See, for example, Shortcut. :) The first shortcut box is correct; the others are not.

3. Because the page is now reading quite long (and complicated), I would recommend doing away with the bolded subheaders in the "When is it a problem?" section. It's only four paragraphs, so I think that probably the subdivisions are unnecessary.

4. I would place the section on when close paraphrasing is permitted first. In those cases, close paraphrasing is no longer a concern. The subheaders there may be useful, but are currently misleading, as the second paragraph under "Public domain or free use content" is explicitly not about "Public domain or free use content". :) Since there really isn't a good subheader category for that paragraph and since the final paragraph applies to all of the above, I think it might be better not to subcategorize them, but to add a lead sentence to the section.

5. The "How to write acceptable content?" focuses heavily on plagiarism. ("Plagiarism can occur even when it's unintentional; Changing words, phrases and sentence structure can still be considered plagiarism if the content still has essentially the same meaning, rhythym and style as the source information....") I tend to struggle with getting people to remember that plagiarism and copyright problems are two different things. I think this section needs to be shortened and revised to keep it focused on close paraphrasing.

6. I'm not sure how I feel about the "see also" table. It reads very cluttered to me. The annotations are nice, however. What about a hang line, something like this:
 * Plagiarism:Guideline on Wikipedia's definition of and approach to handling plagiarism.

--Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for all of your comments, I'm adding #s here to track the responses:


 * 1. Example: I moved the example down because I thought it might be helpful to give a little more insight into the issue first, so that when they read the example it might make more sense. It's not a big deal to me.


 * addition: The point for me wasn't about moving the example down, it was about moving the "When is it a problem?" up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 2. "Shortcuts" boxes: ✅ Ok, I removed them.


 * 3. "When is it a problem".
 * I unbolded the sub headings in "When is it a problem" and other subheadings (for uniformity). ✅--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we at least keep the indents? I don't know if I'm unique, but there's so much info to review - and having something that helps set the context for what is coming makes it easier to digest.  It's effectivly a short outline of the key points from the section.  Does the unbolding help?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 4. When close paraphrasing is permitted edits:
 * ✅ place the section first is first.
 * ✅ my thought, unbolded headings (like #3)
 * ✅ re-labeled second heading, and moved the "Nevertheless..." sentence to the end of the first subsection. Is "Quotations" for the second sub-heading better?
 * same point about sub-headings helping those of us new to the topic to run by you. This was one of the hardest sections for me to read without having sub-headings, but there may be another way to go about it - numbering, etc. that would be preferrable to you.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 5. "How to write acceptable content?" I'll work on that, that will take a little time. ✅ Actually it didn't take much time, done - and caught another instance I put in the intro. I did leave, though, the "plagiarism" items that were already in the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 6. "See also" table: I like that idea. I'll work on that.  Wonderful comments, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ created two versions - one with the hanging line and another with bullets to see what you think--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Finished updated above - Summary: The net-net remaining questions from the items above are:
 * #1 where would you like the example to go>
 * #4 Is "Quotations" ok for the second subheading under "When is it a problem"?
 * #3 and 4 can we keep the (unbolded) subheadings and indents - or another way to present the information for readability (numbering, other)?
 * #6 do you mind taking a peak at the two versions and letting me know which one you like better? It looks much better, thanks! --CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Added the second item under the summary regarding "Quotation" subheading.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC) And, two minor edits.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Before addressing the above, I want to ask if you mind my editing the page directly. Since it's in your userspace, I would not take the liberty without your permission. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying Moonriddengirl that you would prefer than rather than leaving your original list in tact that I put my responses within the now numbered list? (Just trying to be clear that I'm making the right change).  Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm asking if it's okay with you for me to edit the document as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it was good for me to ask then, wasn't it (laughing at myself). Sure, go for it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm working on tightening the "When is close paraphrase permitted?" section. The "quotations" header doesn't really work, either, because quotations can't be closely paraphrased; they must by policy be verbatim. I'll see what I can come up with. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I've got some things I've got to take care of.  I'll check back later.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

More notes
--Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't have any problem with moving the example down, but I think others might, as it may be difficult for users to grasp what is meant by close paraphrasing. We'll see, I suppose. :)
 * 2) Unbolding does help, but I have pulled the subtitles from the "Why is it a problem?" section (retitled from "When...") I think the separation is very helpful in the "When is it okay" section (particularly since you indicated you had problems with it), but I do believe that it makes the page too choppy to use it overall, and I think it will matter far less to people in the "When is it not okay?" section. Taking a look at them, would you think it's okay with subsections in one, but not the other?
 * 3) I cut down the "How to write acceptable content?" section a bit. There is one sentence in there that really concerns me, though: "Use synonyms for words - especially verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. Exceptions, when there are limited options, such as sentences with names, names of places, and dates." I think this is a bit dangerous. People all too often think that if they use synonyms, they've rewritten in their own words. When this leaves the original structure of the text intact, that's not true. The courts tend to refer to this as clumsy and obvious efforts to hide copying.
 * 4) I like the bullets you suggested better. :) It keeps the description but makes the page read shorter overall. That's important, I think.
 * 5) I'd like to suggest we cut the "Why is that important?" section. I think it's covered well enough in the rest of the essay.

Since there has been no response yet: this section has been updated (17:19, 4 July 2011 ), reflecting updates to the article and comments from 23:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. While I previously asked where to move the examples, I went ahead and moved the examples up to the first thing in the article. Does that work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 4 I put subheadings back in "Why is that a problem?".--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 5. Cool, I removed that sentence.


 * 6. Cool!


 * 7. I removed the "Why is it important section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for taking your time to look this over! Great edits to "Why is it a problem" in particular!  I'm guessing from your comments that we're close - just 4/7 to resolve.  Is that right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Sorry for the delay; yesterday I was trying to whittle down the backlog, and this morning I've been doing more "work" work. Let me get back up to speed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, hi! I don't know if you noticed the update to the section below, but I also started another example at: User:CaroleHenson/Close paraphrasing example.


 * No. I haven't looked that far down yet. :) I'll get my thoughts down here and then check it out.


 * I think that the two of us, at least, are close to consensus here. :) I'm still uncomfortable with the subheadings, though, in the "Why is it a problem" section. :/ Besides adding to an overall sense of the page as being long (with each section subdivided), I believe that the divisions create a confusion as to what impact the first sentence has. We don't care if students are understanding the source and learning. The way it's written in the current essay, that statement (the purpose of which is kind of ambiguous in our essay) is not asserting necessarily "we don't do it for this reason" but could be seen in opposition to the following sentence: "Wikipedia's primary concern is with the legal constraints...." All depends on how it's read and where the emphasis is placed.


 * I don't know. Maybe removing that first sentence and the subheader altogether would be best? That would leave us at least with one two sections, which would visibly reduce the impact. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, why don't you go ahead and change it whatever way you think is best. Maybe I'm unique in that it helps me to get information in manageable bits.  It's really your area of expertise, so I'll defer to whatever you think is best.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the work is my area, but the best way to present it is kind of open to anybody. :D I think you and I are both worried about WP:TLDR and approaching it differently. I've tried removing the first section and altering the lead sentence of the section. What do you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks fine. I'm not meaning to take this off on a tanget, but responding about some finding it "too long" - one way that may help with that is to pull out the "how to write" section and make it it's own essay.  I'll go along with whatever you thinkg.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Cat example
The initial item was inserted mid-stream (i.e., not under example), so I moved this to it's own section:

Carole, this isn't a criticism of your offering, I think the Cats rewrite has been around for some time but all the same I think it's actually a very bad example. The result of the rewrite would have been a lot better if it had remained closer to the original. Structure doesn't necessarily "belong" to the original any more than the factual content does. For example, dealing with nomenclature issues at the very beginning, isn't proprietorial, it's logical and conventional and viable alternatives may be limited. I think it's important to make the point that in some circumstances internalisation of content and regeneration is inappropriate. Opbeith (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm hearing right, there are two issues:
 * One with returning the exact language from the current essay. ✅ reinserted all the exact language from the current Close paraphrase essay. I did keep the labels, though, for source, unacceptable and acceptable - but you might have been words to use.


 * Second, that it's not a good example. I actually have four examples User:CaroleHenson/Working list which are still to be reviewed by someone.  If you want a different example, would any of them be starting points for making better examples?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with using examples that rely on actual, copyrighted text. I've never much liked the "cat" example (and like Opbeith know we can't blame you for that), but I've never had a better one to offer in its place. Ideally, we'd use one that draws on a PD source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can look for another example if you wouldn't mind pointing me to potential public domain sources - a particular type of federal site? other? How would you go about finding a PD source?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, in re-reading your words - maybe finding a WP article written with material from the public domain?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind, rather than looking for an example, I'm creating one from info at the Library of Congress.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a great idea and an excellent source collection. :) You might want to change the descriptions a bit, though. I didn't realize at first that you were reproducing your second source. "Acceptable version" made me think it was your proposed rewrite. :) Instead of calling it "Acceptable version - step 1)", how about something like: "Correcting issues - step 1) Bring in other source(s)" and "Correcting issues - step 2) Read source information, preferably taking notes to extract essential points, and write a summary in your own words, thereby producing an acceptable version."

In terms of the acceptable rewrite, I might propose going a bit further with integration, since the example will be studied closely. :) Maybe something like this: "In the 1930s a Works Progress Administration (WPA) project, called Federal Writers Project, was conducted to capture the history record of people born into slavery. At the time of the project 2/3rds of the more than 2,300 men and women interviewed were over the age of eighty, having been one to fifty years of age when they obtained their freedom in 1865. Over 500 black and white photographs were taken of interview subjects. The Library of Congress Manuscript and Print and Photograph Divisions assembled a seventeen-volume collection from the set, called 'Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938.' David Brion Davis, a historian, claimed that the large collection 'is indisputably unique among former slaveholding nations.'" The main purpose there is to vary the presentation of the number of participants and photographs. (I also changed some of the numbers to work in keeping with WP:MOSNUM.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * All sound good! I went ahead and made those changes and will replace the cat example.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To your point about the article being too long, should we remove now the first example - and then anyone who dives in the Signpost dispatch will see it for the first time? Whatever you think.  Thanks so much, I feel we're getting close!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do, too. :) I think I like the example from the Signpost; bringing that over seems like a good idea. I'm toying with the idea of the judicious use of collapse boxes for those tables and for the example approaches to contributors. They visually reduce the clutter of a page and can be expanded for those who want to know more. I might give it a go and link to my results so we can talk about it. I'm also wondering if your new example should be moved to the "how to do it right" section, since it does more than show how to do it wrong. I may test that out, too, so we can see how we like it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tested it out, although I decided that a collapse in the "example" section didn't work because it left an oddly brief section. What do you think? Do you like it with the collapse boxes and/or reorganization? I'd prefer to keep the essential info in one essay, if we can. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Great idea! I like it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the picture? Help or hurt? Finding pictures to represent "close paraphrasing" is no easy challenge! :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed and was going to comment that I like it too - it helps "bring home" the point! Good idea there, too!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then are we ready to propose it at the actual essay? If so, we can copy it over with a link in edit summary to this page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah!! Will do (if you'd like me to do it)!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Go for it, I think. :) Just be sure to include a link to this page in your edit summary so people can see what we've been up to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks so much MRG!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Carole. :) I think it's much improved! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, both, I got tangled up elsewhere and then lost my way back here. I just want to say that between you you've come up with an example that is much more focused and useful than the Cats one. Opbeith (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph
I've watchlisted the page now, so hopefully won't lose it again. Coming at the essay afresh, it strikes me that the first sentence is almost an example in itself rather than an explanation. I wonder if it could be made a bit more explicit. I wonder whether something like "Close paraphrasing is the reuse of information in a way that relies on the wording or the structure of the original source" (I'm not keen on 'another' here because it can be misread) "to such an extent that it reproduces the creative element of the original as well as its conventionally organised factual content." would work - MRG can hopefully spot any major problems that this overlooks. The next sentence would then go on to say that generally close paraphrasing of copyrighted material is unacceptable but mention the circumstances in which close paraphrasing is allowable, eg public domain, licensed content, etc. in a general way. The third sentence could then mention the technical details of acceptable use of copyrighted material - limited reproduction, attribution, appropriate licensing. Opbeith (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)