User talk:Sphilbrick/Guide to copyright investigations

Types of case studies desired
I started with a case study where the words in both sources are clearly identical, so the task it to determine which came first. In this particular example, the Wikipedia article was the offending article. It will be nice to add a case study where the conclusion is that there is a reverse copyvio.

Examples of different techniques to track down which came first would be helpful.

It would also be good to find some examples where the wording isn't identical; the question is whether it is close paraphrasing. Ideally, we would identify a few examples, with a couple on either side of the line, to help illustrate the line. This could be tricky, as different people can honestly have different opinions on the same material.

Some recent backwards copies
CoEx
 * CoEx ([ history] · [ last edit]) Copied and pasted. VWBot (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting support.svg Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. This one looks like a mirror. The article was created a month after its creation on .nlWikipedia in 2007. I can't see archives of the given website. The big key is that the first revision of the article is different from the source in question. The article was translated first and then copy-edited by another user.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Original conversation from: Copyright problems/2011 May 31

Srebrenica massacre
 * Srebrenica massacre from http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/srebrenica_massacre.html
 * I am going to say it is a backwards copy. It was probably ripped from us in early 2006. See August 2005 and by June 2006, it had evolved more. Around February 2006 appears close. A key is the insertion of this section; in the last sentence, "In contrast, Srebrenica genocide..." was later changed to "For example, Srebrenica genocide..." a few hours later. This is what appears on the site in question. Also that site's article on the Holocaust was much similar to ours at the time.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Original conversation from: Talk:Srebrenica_massacre

Demand chain A large portion of the content, beginning with this edit appears to be copied from]. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the nature of that account, I thought that was a pretty likely. However, the material appears to have evolved here over time and was then later copied to the document you linked to.  Consider this edit which changes "three" to "four"; the other document keeps the "four" and even incorporates the next section title as a "five".  It also has a version date of October 2010, and material first appeared here in June.  Kuru   (talk)  02:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch.
 * The copyright for the pdf is 2009-2010, while the first edit to incorporate the material is Jun 2010 as indicated in the diff above. Maybe what we have is the author working here as an editor, updating both simultaneously? I'm not sure how to proceed.--Ronz (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The article in Supply Chain Asia was created on 28/10/10 (check the date on their site). The Wikipedia text and diagram was created in June 2010 and earlier. It would appear from these dates that Supply Chain Asia copied from Wikipedia, not the other way round. What do you advise to correct this situation? 212.139.204.190 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the 1.0 version of the document. If revisions prior to 1.0 were made in 2009 as indicated in their copyright notice, then the information may have been copied from there to here. They claim copyright to the material. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As a contributor to this Wiki I can confirm that Supply Chain Asia did not obtain any material from me and I think they must have copied Section 2 of their document DM100 from Wikipedia. What do you advise? Idea Farm (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining the discussion. Where did you get the material? That was a huge first-ever edit you made adding it, already formatted for use in Wikipedia, but with section numbering that suggest it came from other materials, though perhaps your own.--Ronz (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The material was written specially by me for Wikipedia - it's based on my extensive reading in this area and is referenced to attributable sources. I'm a great believer in Wikipedia and frankly would rather put material into the public domain via Wiki than commercial press.  I was pretty surprised when I saw that stuff published by Supply Chain Asia, not least the lack of attribution or sourcing.  I do it under the nom de plume Idea Farm as I'm not too bothered by personal publicity, although this incident with SCA was made me think more about IP. Idea Farm (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for clarifying. Sorry your work has been plagiarized so.
 * I'll remove the copyvio tag based upon the discussion above. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on the backwardscopy as well. They took text from Demand chain management as well which was inserted a year earlier than this article and by a different editor.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Original conversation from: Talk:Demand chain, Reported at: Copyright problems/2011 June 2

Adelaide Arena from http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiums.php?id=36 Current source was updated on November 4, 2010. Text from source was inserted into Wikipedia on 9 April 2009. SeeOctober 2009 archive of website, which does not contain text from Wikipedia article.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Reported at: Copyright problems/2011 June 2

Johnny Alegre Affinity from http://johnnyalegre.com/music-groups/affinity-jazz.php Notice the first revision in 2006 which was improved a few months later. The source in question more resembles the version in 2010.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Reported at: Copyright problems/2011 June 2

United Nations Environment Programme from http://www.unfoundation.org/your-role/partners/un-partners/unep.html Initial revision of this article in 2002 similar but the last sentence of the text in question was added in January 2007. A key is the changing of the establishment month to "June" in June 2007.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Reported at: Copyright problems/2011 June 3, comments from tag at: Talk:United Nations Environment Programme