Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 September 6

6 September 2018

 * Tiffany Abney ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from http://53rdgainor.com/#crew. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Greece ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) I noticed this on an (unrelated) on-going dispute on the Greece talk page. Large parts of the history section are a word-for-word match from this. I tagged the section for copy-vio, and did some research. The problem is that I entered the Wikipedia version on 18 February 2012 while the first edition of the book was published by Routledge in April 2017. WP:BACKWARDSCOPY? I'm very confused and need guidance on how to proceed. It has been part of the Greece page since 2012 and has since been thoroughly referenced. --Michail (blah) 17:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Some more poking around also found copyright violations matching the words "The Roman Empire in the east, following the fall of the Empire in the West" after which the book preview ends. This wording was first added by a different user, as an amendment to my previous Wikipedia entry, on 20 April 2012. Even more confusion. --Michail (blah) 17:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The exact wording found in the book regarding the Roman Empire in the East was added by a third person in November 2012 and is identical to what the book contains, if we exclude the contents in the parentheses. --Michail (blah) 18:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A further edit by yet another user from 2013 is also found word-for-word in the book. --Michail (blah) 18:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Michail. I cannot see the text at Google Books, which will make it somewhat difficult for me to help you, but I can tell you that there are several things I look for before I flag content as a backwardscopy. First question, which you've already asked, is "Does the external source clearly predate the use of the material here?" If yes, copypaste confirmed. What's left is determining the copyright status of the source. If it cannot be confirmed that the external source predates, it is sometimes difficult to exclude that the external source predates, as books may be compiled of papers or content previously published elsewhere. So in those cases I look to see whether the content entered Wikipedia as a paste by one person, with any modifications to the material creating greater dissimilarity between Wikipedia and the source. If so, copypaste is very likely. If not - if multiple people added the content in stages and the material evolved to grow more like the source, then backwardscopy is likely. The more clarity I can find around growing similarity or dissimilarity the better. Even though I can't see the text at the link you share for the source, I'll look at the article and see if I can share any further thoughts on this specific case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I have been able to access the book preview through an independent search. Perhaps the problem for me in the link was the difference in our base languages. For the benefit of others, the book is Historical Mechanisms: An Experimental Approach to Applying Scientific Theories to the Study of History by Andreas Boldt. It was published in 2017, as Michail noted.


 * I zero in on the following text to begin my review:


 * Searching for the phrase "Greek-speaking communities of the Hellenized east," I find it entering the article in April 2012 by user DeCausa. There are similarities to the book and differences.


 * We can see clear signs that the content as added in 2012 evolved to be more like the book rather than less.


 * At the time that this passage was inserted in 2012, the article already contained quite a bit of content that appear both in the book and the later article. The paragraph above the insertion is present in both. The paragraph below the insertion is present in both.


 * Let's take a quick look at one sentence in both:


 * This text entered our article - substantial similar to but different from the book - the same day, slightly earlier, by the same user: . Over time, the phrase "as well as hegemony over most of the Greek city-states" was modified and incorporated earlier in the sentence. We see that change occur in 2015, here, as a copy-edit by Khirug. Khirug's copy-editing, of course, is reflected in the book.


 * Looking back to the original focus passage to see when and how content evolved, we note that the original text "However, Greece itself had a tendency to cling on to paganism" at some point evolved in our article to "Nevertheless, much of Greece clung tenaciously to paganism". The latter is what appears in the book.
 * "However, Greece itself had a tendency to cling on to paganism" loses its "However" in November 2013 (here)
 * The resultant "Greece itself had a tendency to cling on to paganism" was modified to "Greece remained largely pagan" in December 2014 (here), but was swiftly restored to reflect the source here, from which edit it emerged as "Nevertheless, Greece itself clung tenaciously to paganism."
 * "Nevertheless, Greece itself clung tenaciously to paganism" becomes "Nevertheless, much of Greece clung tenaciously to paganism" in 16 February 2015.


 * At this point, I believe there is more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude that the material evolved in Wikipedia gradually through the work of multiple editors over a period spanning multiple years. Since the book is visible only in preview and since its topic is not actually Greek history, but rather the investigation of how histories are written - sources chosen and excluded - it is entirely possible that this was an acknowledged copy of material from Wikipedia intended to review precisely that. Either way, we would need some additional evidence that this content was copied from that book or a proto-version of it to conclude that any of our content was copied from it, rather than the other way around.


 * I'll call this one resolved and tag the talk page, Michail. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, somebody (perhaps you?) already added the tag to the talk page. I've linked to this page as evidence. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)