Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 29

Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)

 * Eli Lieb ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://eliliebstreet.com/biography/. Borderline case; material copied from that page has been partly rewritten, but not removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Yikes. That was a mess. I've rev-deleted some, but not all, of the copyvio in history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Syntrichopappus fremontii ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from Mojave Desert Wildflowers, by Pam MacKay. I've already removed similar copying from the same book at Hilaria rigida, and see worrying evidence of a lot more of the same in other pages. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * (Please also see related discussion here, as to why this, and the other discussed example, are not copyright violations.) FloraWilde (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What are examples of "blatant" copying? The first sentence here, combines info from three sources, so cannot be "blatant copying".


 * The article contains basic information on range and habitat, and descriptions of growth pattern, leaves and stems, and inflorescence and fruit. The content should be the same no matter what the source, since it must ultimately be the same as what is in Jepson. This may look like a coyright violation content in Jepson, or of content of a field guide based on Jepson. But it is not a copyright violation. The Mojave Desert Wildflowers source is a field guide that is based on the Jepson Manual, with specific reference to the revised edition being checked against Jepson by Tim Hunter.


 * Any article on a flowring plant in California will have content that looks like this 1. common names, family, general description, general location, then 2. range and habitat, 3. description of leaves and stems, 4. description of inflorescence and fruit and bloom season, and sometimes 5. Uses and 6. Ecological interactions. The information is basic, so the content should be about the same as what is in any field guide, which should in turn be what is in Jepson.


 * The articles as I been been finding them were typically started by User:IceCreamAntiSocial, who appears to have done volumes of good work. They have same information as 1-4, in a narrative, paragraph form,  without inline citations, without being broken into sections, and sometimes with additions by others as to 5 and 6. I have started breaking them into sections, then putting in the inline citations with CN tags or corrections according to the cited filed guide source. Others can then later come in and add minutiae from academic sources, into each of these sections. This is not a copyright violation. It is standard in writing about plants with field guides as sources.


 * The result is an article with content and breakdown that looks like the organization and content in a field guide, but it is not a copyright violation (of the field guide or Jepson). The field guide in turn looks like the bold faced info in the hard copy of Jepson, but that is also not a copyright violation (of Jepson).

Since there are no specific examples cited for this article, or for "worrying evidence of a lot more of the same in other pages", it is difficult to further respond. Please restore the article and keep in mind that plant articles will typically have the same, or very similar, content as what is in bold in hard copy Jepson, or in field guides, and that this is not a copyright violation. If it was, then no one could write a basic Wikipedia article on plants, since basic content is always in Jepson, and usually in a field guide. FloraWilde (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The WikiPlants template for writing plant articles has the same topics as sections in this source - general, then distribution (soil type, vegetation type, elevation, geographic location), description (leaves and stems, inflorescence and fruit), and uses (ecological interactions, human uses). Botanical nomenclature is standardized for information in the distribution and description sections. There is very little choice in presenting very simple facts with standardized topics and nomenclature. Many of the technical nomenclature expressions are titles of pre-existing articles at Wiki, leaving no wording choice. This is not a copyright violation. FloraWilde (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing actual copyright violation here. I have a copy of Pam Mackay's book to compare against, and the sentences are different, and differently-ordered.  There are phrases in common, but what I see is phrasing that follows some standard conventions for botany, where any tinkering results in either changes to the meaning, or convoluted wording that obscures the meaning. Stan (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: I've looked at this again, and now posted on the article talk-page an example of the sort of edit that caused me to list the page here; I don't really agree with the assessment of . Because user is clearly upset about this, I'd be grateful for a second opinion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RTP, to keep the discussion on a single page, I moved the comments on that talk page to the subsection below, and linked that talk page to this discussion. Please feel free to move it back if I made an error. FloraWilde (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised there is such an extensive discussion about this when there are already guidelines for such cases (not botany specifically, but close paraphrasing in general). This is covered in WP:LIMITED, and FloraWilde's single sentence (Justlettersandnumbers example below) clearly constitutes closely paraphrased simple statements of fact, which are explicitly allowed (with an example very close to that of FloraWilde) on Wikipedia. I can also, from personal experience, attest that such similar sentences are unavoidable in botanical articles. A single sentence being quite similar, but still not identical, to a sentence from a sourced work is nearly impossible to avoid without resorting to nonsensical ordering or nomenclature. Thus, FloraWilde's sentence actually fulfills both criteria to allow limited close paraphrasing (simple statement of fact and unavoidable use of technical terms), despite only one being required.WP:CV and WP:PARAPHRASE also specify that "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure". The language and structure used in FloraWilde's source is not creative, containing only facts in a format standard for botanical description. I'm not sure how to remove/undo the copyright violation notices, so it would be appreciated if someone more knowledgeable would do that, but I'm confident this will close the discussion about it. Dunditschia (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(Note: Per WP:RTP, this subsection was moved from the article talk page to this page, so as not to have a single discussion split into two pages.)

I just don't know why I have not before now posted here an example of the kind of edit that caused me to list this article at WP:CP. I apologise for that, particularly as more than one editor has suggested that there is nothing to worry about here. With editor  added this text: Mojave Desert Wildflowers, by Pam MacKay, has on page 214 this text: I don't see how such very close paraphrasing can be justified. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The field guide used as a source has the same structure for presentation of standard botanical information as the WikiPlants template for writing plant articles. First, there is a general information section, which at Wiki is called the lead section. Then there are sections on distribution (soil type, elevation, vegetation type, geographic location) and description (stems and leaves, inflorescence and fruit). Numerical information will be identical with the source. Botanical nomenclature is standardized, leaving little or no choice as to what words to put in the WikiPlant template. Many of the technical terms and expressions already exist at Wiki, as titles of the articles that are linked to, again leaving little or no choice for wording. This is not a copyright violation. FloraWilde (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The WikiPlants article template has the same structure as this particular field guide source, and many other field guides used as sources. First there is a general information section (at Wiki, the lead section). Then there are sections on distribution (habitat and range) and description (with subsections on stems and leaves, and on inflorescence and fruit). This creates the appearance of copyright violation of the source's structure, but since the Wiki plant article template predated the source, it is not a copyright violation of the structure of this source. Numerical information will be identical with the source. Botanical nomenclature is standardized, and is often used as tiles for Wiki articles that are linked to. This creates the appearance of copyright violations. The following subsection illustrates this.


 * More specifically, the Wiki plant article template has habitat and range (distribution) as a standard section topic. Numbers for elevations should be identical with the numbers in the source (with a conversion to metric added). Wording for vegetation type and geographic location should be identical with the corresponding titles of Wiki articles when such articles exist, so if a source also uses those words, the wording will be identical with the source. There has been a longstanding effort in botany to use standardized nomenclature, so words in clauses of plant articles will often be identical. Apparent copyright violations will thereby randomly occur. But these randomly occurring similar or identical sentences are not copyright violations.
 * In the particular example cited, from the standardized section on habitat and range, I edited with the same template structure in my head as I use in all articles,


 * A - The following is a standard expression in desert plant articles-
 * That expression occurs in 163 other plant arricles. Reversing it will likely appear to be a copyright violation of other sources, since the expression "gravelly or sandy soils" occurs in 145 other plant articles. These are standard expressions in desert plant articles, not copyright violations.
 * That expression occurs in 163 other plant arricles. Reversing it will likely appear to be a copyright violation of other sources, since the expression "gravelly or sandy soils" occurs in 145 other plant articles. These are standard expressions in desert plant articles, not copyright violations.


 * B - Vegetation types are described with standard language that is also used for the corresponding titles in Wiki articles that are linked to. For example, the following wording for two vegetation types is also the title of corresponding Wiki articles -
 * There is only one possible expression that links to the Wiki articles for each of these two vegetation types. Reversing the order of the two expressions would likely only result in an apparent copyright violation with some other source. This is not a copyright violation.
 * There is only one possible expression that links to the Wiki articles for each of these two vegetation types. Reversing the order of the two expressions would likely only result in an apparent copyright violation with some other source. This is not a copyright violation.


 * C - "Mojave Desert" is the only name used for that desert. A plant that is found only in the eastern, northern, and southern Mojave Desert will be identically described one out of six times by the statistics of randomness. There are six permutations for ordering the three directions, "north", "east", and "south". Therefore, one in six articles with this content will be identically worded with any source having this information. This is not a copyright violation.


 * D - Numbers for D will be identical with the source. There is only one way to write
 * This is not a copyright violation.
 * This is not a copyright violation.


 * Since Justlettersandnumbers made these comments, I have been checking word order against the cited source. If a sentence is similar, I have broken up the sentence. If the order of information is similar, I have been changing the order. I have been putting in conversions to metric when numbers occur. I have been trying to change standardized nomenclature to use plain English when possible, as an alternative. I would do the same for this sentence in this article, but the entire article was taken down and is unavailable to edit. FloraWilde (talk)
 * - the approach you describe here - breaking up sentences, reordering, plain English - is an excellent approach to such issues. Having an editor familiar with the area help with these is ideal, as outsiders (like me) can't accurately judge what's standard for the field and what's not. If you're willing to help with this specific article, there are two ways to do it. One is standard, and the other is an "ignore all rules" approach that i don't ordinarily recommend, but that might serve in a situation like this. The standard approach is to place the rewrite at the temp page. The other is to edit the article itself - the text is all still there in the source code; it's just hidden by the template. The second approach is not generally best because honestly what we often encounter is that people deal with copyright issues by creating close paraphrases. Having it in a separate document helps us avoid the kind of rewriting where somebody changes a sentence like "Bob Smith expressed a certain level of dismay at the acts of Parliament" to "Bob Smith expressed a certain level of discomfort at the acts of Parliament." :/ In a situation like this, I'd be comfortable with either revising on the separate page or on the page itself and would be very grateful for your efforts there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will get to it soon. I am surprised that with the WikiProject:plants article template being very similar or the same as apparently used by many field guide authors, and the standardization of botanical terms used to describe habitats, leaves, stems, inflorescence, and fruit, that there were not at least some sentences that were exactly the same as in some field guide or another. It is clear to me why User:Justlettersandnumbers (or some other editor in the future) will look at these articles (which to date have had few or no sources) and see what appears to be copyright violations, even when they are written straight out of an editors head without first looking at a source. In the future, I will carefully check my own edits, and already existing edits of others, against the source I am inserting as a ref, to make sure this appearance of a copyright violation is avoided. FloraWilde (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)