Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727

Are we serious?
Are we seriously going to open a full blown CCI and review all 7000 contributions? I just looked at a few dozen articles at random and other than some close paraphrasing and in one case a copy paste from an open source government website (its bad form and not a good practice but not a copyright violation) of a couple sentances I haven't found much. I also looked through a pile of images and it looks like most are of buildings and other freely distributable things although admitedaly I did see a couple sculptures that might be questionable. All in all this CCI seems way overkill of the actual problem. --Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I chose 5 articles at random. Two of them I've nominated for deletion without checking for copyvios because they don't meet WP:N.  Of the remaining three, two had clear copyvios.  The other had no copyvios but was chock-full of original research and all the sources listed were unreliable.  These articles need a lot of help. Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Youll get no argument from me that there are a lot of poorly written articles in WP and if in the process of these we improve a few then thats ok but it seems like its a bit blown out of proportion. --Kumioko (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to drop a note too that I will include a mention in the WPUS newsletter next week about needing help mining through all these articles so hopefully that will generate somem info. I think if we start by picking the lowhanging fruit (ie the easy ones) then we can leave the more complicated ones for the folks who do CCI more often and know what too look for. --Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)