User talk:SandyGeorgia/IPTemp

Concerns/Questions
I'm not able to reconcile the implicit objective of detection of plagiarism/copyvios with what I anticipate to be the (non-existent?) effects of this questionnaire. More specifically, perhaps, how will these questionnaires be utilized? If a nominator agrees to these statements, what is actually achieved? Will reviewers then not need to check for plagiarism/copyvios?

Let’s say a nominator completes the questionnaire sincerely believing there to be no plagiarism/copyvios, yet some is/are found. What role will the questionnaire play other than embarrassing an editor who made an honest mistake? Say a nominator “rubber stamps” the questionnaire (doesn’t genuinely consider the questions) or lies. What good does the questionnaire do in that scenario? Assuming a plagiarism/copyvio check is still needed even if a nominator has completed a questionnaire, what is truly accomplished other than bureaucratic distraction? How would a "registry" of these questionnaires help to detect plagiarism/copyvios? Эlcobbola talk 15:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's how I see it:
 * Our first goal is to educate, perhaps nothing more in some cases.
 * We should BY NO MEANS stop checking articles ourselves at FAC or other content review processes.
 * Quoting another editor: "the form is [not] as important as the fact: we need something to remind the editors of their responsibilities.  The cheats will ignore it anyway, but the others may think twice."
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If we seek only to educate (1) and remind editors of their responsibilities (3), why not then just supplement the "Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived" instructions? Many of my questions were not answered:  How will these questionnaires be utilized?  If a nominator agrees to these statements, what is actually achieved?  How would a "registry" of these questionnaires help to detect plagiarism/copyvios?   Эlcobbola  talk 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of copyvio/plagiarism occurs early on, well before articles reach FAC, so I was hoping to have something *before* the FAC stage. If we just add it to the FAC instructions (or any content review instructions), it's just another thing nominators will never read, or, we'll never know if they really read it.  Here, we're asking them to specifically address each question; if they do that, and then we find problems, there's a good case for being able to block the editor.  The registry is only so we don't have to query a nominator like, for example, Brianboulton, every time he noms another article-- he's on record.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How is Wikipedia helped in the scenario of the nominator who completes the questionnaire sincerely believing there to be no plagiarism/copyvios, yet some is/are found? Эlcobbola  talk 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask (the more knowledgeable than myself), how is it harmed? We still have to check, but at least we can educate some. Honestly, until you all wrote the Dispatch, I ws pretty clueless-- it would have helped ME. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Harm is as I said above: embarrassment. Say a respected content builder makes a mistake (and not one of a large scale).  Will s/he be harassed?  Blocked?  Dissuaded from future contribution?  Let's say there's no harm or help; what's the need for the bureaucracy then?  Эlcobbola  talk 17:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that respected content builders will take their lumps and help fix the problems, while this will make it easier to show others the door. In trying to walk the line between WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NONENG, and dealing with POV pushers on Venezuela articles, I am certain that some of my translations from Spanish to English were verbatim, because I was forced to do that because they wouldn't accept any rephrasing, always arguing for sticking to exactly what was said-- I do not know if I quoted all those instances, but I do know I have since y'all wrote the Dispatch.  It is utterly impossible for me to go back and find any of those now, I have edited gazillions of Venezuela articles-- if some come to light, I take my lumps, but at least I know not to do that now, because y'all educated me with the Plagiarism Dispatch.  If someone is embarassed by something they didn't know before, tough lumps; if they continue to do it after educated, different story.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all editors have the same professional maturity as you may, Sandy - and that doesn't address my questions regarding the reaction of other editors. Look at the vitriol that has come from the Rlevse situation.  What if he had signed this questionnaire?  Do you believe the comments that preceded his departure would have been more helpful and conciliatory than they were, or less so?  Эlcobbola  talk 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you have a point; I don't know what else to do except check sources myself :/ Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, there are two potential advantages here: contributors who don't know the way things are handled may learn the way things are handled, which can both correct problems in the article being nominated and keep them from creating more problems as they go forward. Contributors who do know the way things are handled but are doing it incorrectly anyway (sadly, we do have these) will no longer be able to claim that they didn't know otherwise. We will have their "name" on file indicating that they do. This can lead to more swift handling of serial infringers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Or, as MRG said on WT:FAC, "... if we provide them with links to material that explains, we deprive them of plausible deniability". Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Advising an editor of certain policies and requiring a signature that such have been understood means very little (for example, as MRG has no doubt experienced, editors can read about derivative works for hours and then still sign that their photo of a contemporary French mural is theirs to license as they see fit). A questionnaire may indeed educate some, but it is not worth the downsides of embarrassing good faith editors, arguments about faith and the added logistics and process.  Everyone makes mistakes; everyone has misunderstandings; and everyone makes assumptions from time to time (e.g. "I know what copyright and plagiarism are; I don't need to waste time reading these").  The goal of education is of course admirable and important, but human nature is not going to change.  Editors inclined to engage fully these policies/guidelines would likely have done so without prompting; the rest (a majority, I expect) will "rubber stamp" per the preceding parenthetical logic.   All edit pages already say “Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted”; people aren’t going to read what they aren’t going to read, regardless of how confronted with the material.


 * Why are nominators not required to sign that they've read and followed WP:BLP (with real life ramifications, every bit as important as copyvio/plagiarism in terms of ethics)? Why not all policies?  We know the answers to those questions.  Additionally, from the responses here, it seems the primary goal of this questionnaire is leverage against serial offenders.  Discipline is not the goal of content review processes.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because BLP vios (and other) are more apparent to reviewers, and we don't have to dig back into history to see how the article developed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the purpose of this was to educate nominators. Why are we talking about reviewers?  That's a separate issue ("We should BY NO MEANS stop checking articles ourselves at FAC or other content review processes").  Эlcobbola  talk 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That copyvio is buried in article history, so educating users early on may help, while BLP vios are on the page for all to see, and not as hard to correct (doesn't matter if they're just reverted or buried in article history). I think; I should probably shut up and let you more knowledgeable folk sort this-- no hurry!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What does it matter when the violation was introduced? Either the violation is in the article, or it isn't.  We're discussing whether the editor knows a policy or not (education).  BLP (proprietary to Wiki) is far more obscure than plagiarism (known to anyone who's attended school). Enough of the BLP tangent, though.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that debate seems to be raging throughout the Wiki (whether it has to be purged from history), so I dunno ... have to see how that is resolved ... but it is my understanding that there's a strong argument that we have to examine history for copyvio, which is just about prohibitive for reviewers to do. Nipping it in the bud is a better step.  I was going through Armero tragedy last night, because it's about to appear on the mainpage, and I found some things that made me a bit uncomfortable, but I don't know enough about copyvio to know where to draw the line, and it took me hours to decide I wasn't qualified-- if the nominator had read some of that info before writing, it might have helped.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, what does any of that have to do with this questionnaire? Эlcobbola  talk 18:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Helping to nip it in the bud, by educating, specifically at each step of content review. I'm not sure why I'm not making myself clear :/ Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What I’m reading: plagarism/copyvio, unlike other ethics/law-based policies (BLP), need a signed agreement because their remediation may be more difficult than the latter.  Does that make sense to you?  Эlcobbola  talk 18:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What if instead of a question format, we included a brief paragraph,something like this (off the top of my head):

The primary goal for me is not leverage against serial offenders, though that's a valid secondary goal. My primary goal is to stop serial offenders, preferably before we have thousands of articles to review from them. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where would the paragraph be included? Are you thinking of something like an edit notice when initiating a content review?  Эlcobbola  talk 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to see nominators specifically answer (as I did in my sample), so we have more indication they're not just ticking another box they haven't read (like WIAFA).  I was proposing to add it to the, and ask reviewers to make sure each nominator is signed up. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That’s exactly the problem: the signature. It doesn’t prove anything has actually been read.  A signed questionnaire is nothing but a leverage mechanism.  That is not the job of content review processes.  Эlcobbola  talk 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know where it would go. Wherever it might actually have any impact. :) There are days I despair of our poor website. Personally, I think an "edit notice" would be better than nothing. I'm not entirely sure what would be optimal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I despair as well; if I can't badger reviewers into checking, I don't know what else I can do. I certainly can't check them all myself.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have commented on my talk page and at FAC talk. I am watchlisting this page in case these comments are useful or I can be of any help. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon... Geometry guy 23:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have some of the same concerns as elcobbola about the way that such as signed statement could be used. In part this is because it is clear the definition of copyright, plagiarism, close paraphrase seems to vary from editor to editor. To be honest, and as someone who tries to be very conscientious about plagiarism etc, I would think twice about signing some of these proposed texts; it would feel like I was hanging an axe over my head that could allow an unreasonable person to add to a plagiarism accusation the fact that I had "lied" about it.
 * The other major problem that I see is that it rather assumes that the article is written by one main editor who has oversight over the whole article. When I helped write Learned Hand, I didn't have many of qp10qp's sources, and he didn't have mine. I couldn't have signed the statement certify the article, and neither could he. Another one of "my" featured articles was actually nominated by an editor who hadn't participated much in the writing at all.  We don't want to discourage or prevent people from nominating suitable articles, just because they can't sign the pledge!!
 * That's not to say that a suitable text can't be composed, that I would sign. It's fine to ask people to certify that they have read various documents; as well as something to the effect that to the best of their knowledge the article complies with them. I noticed on one FAC (which I can't remember) where a variation of these questions were asked, and  this was more or less exactly what the nominator responded, because given the nature of the collaborative editing they couldn't guarantee the edits of other editors. Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to discourage good faith contributors by any means. :/ But with dozens of CCIs open, I would be really happy if we can come up with something to help educate contributors as to what our policies are, anyway. This problem is rampant. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you don't! And I totally concur about the need to get the word out; though personally recent discussions have left me more rather than less confused about the copyright/plagiarism/close paraphrase distinction. If education is the goal, then asking people to certify that they have read various documents is the way to go, along with a general statement that they believe the article complies. Many will diligently read, I'm sure, and hopefully it will cause them to reflect, check  and correct the article.  Some won't read them all. But what can you do? That's the nature of education. --Slp1 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * User:MLauba is trying to help out with that confusion with something for the signpost: User:MLauba/Signpost definitions. I am also trying to work on something of my own for reasons yet unidentified: User:Moonriddengirl/Copyrights. If you can drop by my talk page if you think of anything confusing about copyright/plagiarism/close paraphrase, I'll see if I can help clarify at whatever policy or guideline or essay is necessary. It's complicated stuff! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(out) Sorry to come late to the party, as it were (I've been busy and have been mulling this over). I think something should be done, but fear the current version with five separate repsonses would be too much. I like the box suggested by Moonriddengirl above. I assume this would be something editors would have to see / respond to at each of DYK, PR, GAN, and FAC. I wonder if there are other things that would be added / displayed, probably something different for each of the four? I think repeated exposure to this material would only help improve the encyclopedia. I do note that even though PRs are typically started semi-automatically, so some editors still manage to start PRs on their own and would bypass any such notices. I also like the idea of having some specific spot checks in each review process. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)