User talk:Killing Vector/Archives/2008/December

Plagiarism and Common Knowledge
I read the Wikinews article discussing your accusations of McCain for plagiarising Wikipedia. Very interesting. I'm curious to know why you decided to use the term plagiarism instead of copyright violation, and why you think that a common knowledge clause does not apply. (If you're not familiar with common knowledge in the context of academia and plagiarism, Yale discusses the issue on its website: .)  I also noticed that Wikipedia's article on common knowledge lacks any mention of the academic use of common knowledge, and wondered if you, since you clearly have a strong interest in plagiarism, would be willing to work on that article with me in including a significant section of the ilk. The Jade Knight (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The wikinews article gave only one example that could seriously be considered plagiarism. And I'm curious, how many different ways can you think of to paraphrase "to adopt Christianity as an official religion"?  Google lists 114 non-Wikipedia, non-McCain hits for that exact phrase in conjunction with Georgia.  It seems to me like Wikipedia has been plagiarizing other sources, here .  I expect you would find the exact same for each other the other hits (and, as a matter of fact, if one could do a full-text search of the library, I expect it would come up in a number of print sources, as well).  SEWilco pointed out a similar problem with the claim:  Because the CIA and State Department country summaries are often used as sources, a search of ".gov" sites should have been done.  That quickly reveals other similar sources: "Georgia adopted Christianity, the second nation in the world to do so officially", "enjoyed a brief period of independence", "regained its independence in 1991", "marked by rampant cronyism, corruption, and mismanagement".'
 * Would you be willing to work with me on the common knowledge article, however? The Jade Knight (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Two of those examples are disputed and the last hardly says the same thing (the first don't say the same thing either, actually). Remember:  The idea itself is common knowledge.  Oh, and what do you think of the fact that that exact phrase is found in conjunction with Georgia in over 100 other sources?  Or that similar terminology is found on several government websites as on Wikipedia?  The Jade Knight (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the fact that speeches follow a different rule for "plagiarism" (which we both have been), I think you are conflating words with ideas—if an idea is common knowledge, plagiarism can only occur where there is copying of an ideosyncratic piece of text (in the sense of something which is recognizably unique). This is why basic recipes (including whole sentences of instruction!) and games cannot be copyrighted, though any extended text or ideosyncratic terms used in them can be.  You may write "the man opened the door and stepped inside" in a book.  Someone else could use the exact same phrase in another book without fear of violating your copyright or being sued because there is nothing unique about that sentence—it is too simple, too insignificant, despite the fact that it is an unbroken chain of 8 words.  You yourself seem to be unable to express the exact same idea in other words (or perhaps you simply do not wish to?)  The matter of the fact is that there are very few ways of expressing the exact same idea differently when using such simple language.
 * For what it's worth, I have taught Writing at a university (and I have a particular interest in copyright law), and I think I have some idea of plagiarism is. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I also have appreciated the discussion, though I've already addressed the examples you've given, and you've not responded to my most recent points at all (now or previously). The Jade Knight (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi KV, I just read the Wikinews story myself too. Very interesting. It is certainly very lazy of McCain or his staff to copy from Wikipedia, but I was confused by parts of that story such as this, "Wikinews e-mailed Jay Walsh, the director of communications for the Wikimedia Foundation to see what they thought of the situation, and what if anything they planned to do about it." Do anything about it? I didn't think it was illegal to copy from/plagiarize Wikipedia: I thought we released our edits under the GFDL, so that meant they were free? Deamon138 (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thanks for the reply. I'm certainly no expert either, but I had a look at the GFDL text, and WP:COPYRIGHT, and you seem to be right about attribution when reusing content. However, both pages focus on text/images/computerized methods of reproduction, and don't mention at all "speech", which is surprising. (Either way, it certainly would've been hilarious to hear McCain cite Wikipedia in his speech!) Deamon138 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you and your buddy mikebe lost the battle over the BJCP external link. How's that crow taste?Sgt dizzle guy (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this comunist shit on continuation war?
Your RV has nothing to do whit--Posse72 (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC) actuall events and is only i line with your political agenda! Be a shaME!