Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 89

Proposed guideline: Plagiarism
I would like to propose a formal policy or guideline on plagiarism, and this seems like the best place to put it. I'm also posting a link to WP:VPP pointing to this discussion.

Background

In an article I'm involved with (fully protected article Battle of Washita River, it was discovered that there were a lengthy quote from a copyrighted source that was not in quotation marks (which has since been removed by an admin as a copyvio); but also that there was also an lengthy quotation from a public domain source with no quotation marks that had originally been sourced, but its source removed through sloppy editing during an edit war. Subsequently, I've been in discussion with the editor who originally placed the public domain text who researching maintains that it is unnecessary to put a quote from a public domain source in quotation marks so long as the text is cited. He particularly maintains this to be the case for published public domain information from the U.S. government. I maintain that "Quotation marks are always necessary when it's not your own writing. Otherwise it's plagiarism. This is the case whether it's in the public domain or not." The discussion continues at Talk:Battle of Washita River.
 * I agree: word-for-word quotes are theft unless within quote marks. The situation is less clear when some of the wording is changed (easy, since it's usually possible to improve the text from a source, or trim it for encyclopedic use). Tony 02:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree with this proposal. There are a few editors who add material directly from old encyclopedias without rewriting, which is plagiarism regardless of the copyright issue. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed: this has been the elephant in the living room for some time. I'm keen that users' awareness be raised on this habit of copying other texts in verbatim. Tony 07:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I support this proposal as well. Dreadstar  †  19:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Present policy on plagiarism

Presently, references to plagiarism in Wikipedia policies/guidelines are scattershot and incomplete. As of this writing, what I've been able to find:


 * WP:CITE: "You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quotation, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks &mdash; "like this" &mdash; or single quotation marks if it's a quote-within-a-quote &mdash; "and here is such a 'quotation' as an example." For long quotes, you may wish to use Quotation templates."


 * Problem. Does not make it clear that all published material, regardless of whether it is copyrighted or in the public domain, must be set off as a quotation.
 * Yes it does; it says '"published material"; that means ALL published material, whether copyrighted or not. Tony 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would advice to take this further. Every verbatim quote should be between "quote signs" and be referenced. I.e. I would include verbatim sentences taken from interviews, radio broadcasts, songs, etc. Arnoutf 08:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:PD: "For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for whatever purpose. Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism."


 * Problem. While it makes it clear that proper attribution is needed for public domain material, it does not make it clear that quoted public domain material must be marked as a quotation.
 * Doesn't need to. Tony 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again I would say that if you use a verbatim copy of PD works, although no violation of copyright is still plagiarism. Thus to avoid plagiarism use the quotes. Arnoutf 08:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:COPYRIGHT: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia.  However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference.  See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context."


 * Problem. Addresses only copyrighted works, & that incompletely.
 * Copyright (according to some European laws I know of) comes into existence at the moment of creative expression of the ideas. The creative expression is related to the verbatim copying of texts. Citing the original authors of the work may not be essential for plagiarism, but is essential in the light of the WikiPolicy avoiding original research WP:OR; in other words, we are not allowed to put our own ideas into articles (original research), the only way to show we don't is by very strictly adhering to referencing guidelines.Arnoutf 08:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently, the very few mentions of plagiarism in policies/guidelines point to the mainspace article on plagiarism -- which is not a policy or guideline, so editors may not feel bound by what that mainspace article says.

Prior discussion

I posted about this issue at WP:VPP on 19 July 2007; to avoid losing that discussion through present VPP archiving policy, I copied that discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources where the original VPP can be read as well as more discussion from more editors. Consensus of editors who have so far weighed in on both pages is that any quoted text, whether it's copyrighted or in the public domain, needs to be both sourced and set off as a quotation (through use of quotation marks, are as a block quote). (So far there hasn't been any response at Wikipedia talk:Public domain, but I just posted it today, so we'll see.)

The problem of plagiarism in Wikipedia articles has been mentioned in previous discussions, such as at WP:NGR. It appears to be a common topic in discussions of proposed feature articles, where some editors seem to be confused about what plagiarism is, e.g.,


 * Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2004 (where an editor apparently equates plagiarism with copyright violation, hence, "Look at the definition of public domain. It literally can't be plagarism").
 * Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Zambezi/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Basics of quantum mechanics, where an editor claims that not referencing sources, even if all if it was original writing (by an editor claiming to be an expert on the topic), is plagiarism -- i.e., equating inability to verify sources because no sources were given with plagiarism.

While I've made proposals at both Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and Wikipedia talk:Public domain about language to clarify guidelines about plagiarism, it seems to me that a more unified, clear, and coherent statement about plagiarism is desirable, which wording changes at WP:CITE, WP:PD, WP:COPYRIGHT, and probably as well WP:MOS.

Formulating a policy/guideline

I've never proposed a new policy or guideline here, so I don't know fully the process. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. But I do know it involves discussion. I believe that at the very least, a policy/guideline on plagiarism should incorporate the following points:


 * A clear definition & description of what plagiarism is, basically: "the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgment." (from the plagiarism mainspace article).
 * Examples to illustrate what plagiarism is.
 * Why Wikipedia doesn't want plagiarism.
 * Quoted text must always (1) be cited to its source; and (2) be identified as a quote, regardless of whether the source is under copyright or is in the public domain. Particularly if element 2 is missing, it's plagiarism.
 * A claim of original authorship is implied by the lack of quotation marks, even if the source is attributed. Without quotation marks, it is assumed that the facts or arguments presented in a passage are based on the source, but that the authorship of the passage belongs to the editor who placed the text.
 * I.e., if a fact or argument from a source is rephrased into the editor's own original words, sourcing the reference alone suffices; but if the fact or argument is a verbatim quotation, it must be also marked as a quotation through the use of quotation marks or by setting it off as a blockquote using the "..." tags. --Yksin 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Okay, any thoughts? --Yksin 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC) DGG (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) . instead of the words "original authorship" say, a claim that it is one's own original wording. (to avoid confusion with WP:OR)
 * 2) following the GFDL is one of the reasons--it requires us to track where everything came from.
 * 3) dont get hung up about single or double quotes. Thats a UK/US variation, and whatever was in the article is OK.
 * 4) something about specifically indicating the exact part taken from the PD source when all or almost all the article is used is necessary also. But this is an instance where quotes or block quotations does not seem to be always necessary, and perhaps a footnote indicating the extent is more appropriate.


 * Practical question: Yksin are you planning to take leadership on the actual drafting of this document? Are there others who have agreed to do the "legwork" so to speak? You mentioned: "I've never proposed a new policy or guideline here, so I don't know fully the process."


 * Have you considered drafting an essay? (See Category:Wikipedia essays). An essay would be a good foundation upon which to build your case that there is a need for a new guideline or policy. dr.ef.tymac 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Leftymac, I'm willing to take leadership on it, since after all it was my idea. But of course need lots of input, including how to really do the process; and also of course input on issues such use of the 1911 encyclopedia, & GDFL, & all that stuff.  Unfortunately I came down sick & I can barely sit up & look at a screen right now, much less parse all the thoughts & opinions in any kind of cogent manner right now, so I'll have to come back after I am feeling somewhat better, in a day or two. --Yksin 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Credit the sources but quote only when someone's exact phrasing is relevant. Copyright expires for the benefit of the public so it can be reused. Once public domain prose is added to Wikipedia it is just text and can be altered as needed.  For example, this edit is mostly verbatim and sourced.  It is quite usable but style preferences are for descriptive prose so someone may rewrite it.  There is no need to mark a block of editable text as being special.   (SEWilco 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC))


 * You seem to be advocating plagiarism. Do you understand that plagiarism and copyright violations are two separate issues? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm only against a blanket "must be quoted" rule. I understand there are several separate issues.  For public domain text, identification of the source is not legally required.  I stated the sources should be identified so as to give credit to the author, which is the ethical issue behind plagiarism.  Identification of the source of information, per WP:CITE is only a Wikipedia matter, but is also satisfied by naming the source even if the text is later altered beyond recognition.  (SEWilco 04:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC))


 * But why would you be against quoting if the text has been copied from elsewhere word for word? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it may be editable text rather than a supporting quotation which should not be altered. We don't put quotation marks around 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica text and forbid its alteration.  We credit the source, perhaps with 1911, and sometimes with 1911POV actively encourage its alteration.  We can reuse text but it is at most unethical to not credit the source and at the very least polite to credit the author's work.  But quotation marking should be used for text which should not be changed, such as an individual's statement which supports a topic of the article.  H.G. Wells wrote a history book but is it proper to take anything in the book and wrap quotation marks around it as if he said it and it should never be changed?   If you want easy access to the origin of every word, you'll have to wait for WikiRose.  (SEWilco 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Athough I'm pretty sick right now & can hardly sit up to read, I do understand this, that some kind of allowance or whatever needs to be made for uses such as that out of the 1911 Britannica. The particular case that got me going on this was an article that was sourced to multiple sources, with presumably new writing all the way through it except for that which was in quotation marks -- until it turned out that one person had been making long verbatim quotes of a PD source without marking it as a quote. As at that point the article (Battle of Washita River was being heavily edit-warred over, sloppy editing led to the source being altogether removed.  Additionally, in a long paragraph where the source was given only once (at the end of the paragraph), new text could have been inserted in the middle; thus, the P.D.-source material above it would become severed from its source unless the editor inserting new text thought added a new footnote for it ahead of his/her new insertion.  S/he is much more likely to do so if s/he sees through quotation marks that all that long para was a quote.... And now that I am aware that GFDL is also an issue with this, it makes it even more important for some kind of attention to be given to this problem.... Hope any of this makes sense, as I mentioned, I came down sick & it's not really easy to express myself well at the moment. --Yksin 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In articles derived from the 1911 Britannica, the PD-sourced material may be present at random locations throughout the article. In some such articles, there isn't much identifiable content left from the original Britannica. I think there's nothing wrong with this, provided the article as a whole is clearly marked as containing material from the PD source. If you want to know which parts of the article, use the history feature.
 * I do think it would be reasonable to make a guideline that says "if you copy sections from a PD source, you should start by copying them verbatim and noting it in the edit summary (in addition to making a notation in the References section). Then you can modify the text in subsequent edits." That would make it more feasible for a reader to find out which text came from the PD source, and which didn't. But let's be clear -- this is not a plagiarism issue. Plagiarism happens when you don't give credit. --Trovatore 23:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for PD material to be credited, much less being marked as special with quotation marks. It is ethically preferred to give credit to the original author, and WP:V can be satisfied with a proper citation.  Incidentally, giving the source of text can also avoid an erroneous copyvio claim; when I web search for phrases in some of my PD books I find published texts which are reusing the original material, so someone might later think text from a PD source was taken from a more recent publication.  Later edits can make it awkward to figure out the sources of components (that's what WikiRose is addressing), but as text gets increasingly altered from the original it also becomes less important what the original was.  Also, WP:V can also be satisfied if one uses verbatim PD text and adds references to other supporting material.   Don't worry too much about the PD text, worry about what it says.  (SEWilco 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

why GFDL matters WP itself is not PD! WP is copyright, available under GFDL license, and the licensing is enforced--we insist on attribution when our material is used, and take appropriate action when it isn't. People downstream from us need to know what they can use freely and what they can't. We therefore need to indicate the source of our material. Unless we went to PD status entirely--which we cannot now do because our contributors made their contributions relying on our license--we have no real choice but to indicate the material. DGG (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see a problem with actually insisting on quotation marks in all cases. As I understand it, it is of the esssence of GFDL (and public domain; possibly with some restrictions) that a work can be taken and edited to form a derivative work. The problem arises when a GFDL or public-domain work is copied, with proper attribution and with a statement that the whole text has been copied (and possibly with quotes). If someone then edits the text, this is perfectly legal and I see no reason why it should be regarded as unethical (even if it might be better to completely rewrite the text). It would, however, be unethical to leave the quotation marks, because the text has been altered. In this case, it should be permissible to remove the quotation marks and add a note indicating that the text was originally copied.--Boson 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In cases like that, the text should remain as it is or be completely rewritten. Complete rewrites are probably almost always the way to go, anyway.  — The Storm Surfer 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The presence of quote marks is a signal to all not to tamper with it. Deserves an instant revert. That principle is now expounded in the lead to the MOS. Tony 07:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Public domain material should be freely sliceable and diceable any way we like. That's what the public domain is for. You can do it with Hamlet, and you can do it with the 1911 Britannica. Intellectual honesty demands that we say when something is not entirely our work, but that's it -- there is no requirement to keep the material in quotes, or not to modify it. --Trovatore 07:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * However I do certainly agree that if it is in quotes, and attributed to a particular source, then it should say verbatim what that source said (possibly with ellipses, etc). But if it's public domain, or GFDL, then as Boson says, we can strip off the quotes and modify it, taking care to note the text's mixed provenance.
 * I'm not totally sure what should be the rule about translated material that appears inside quote marks -- "verbatim" is a concept that doesn't directly apply. --Trovatore 07:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Trovatore, you've brought up an important point that I failed to cover when inserting the "don't mess with quotes" clause right up the top, last week. When a quote is translated, there may be scope for tampering with it in ways that are highly unlikely to alter the substantive meaning (e.g., re-formatting 2.45pm to 2:45 pm). Let me think about how to word something extra, which I'll post under a new section soon. Tony 06:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to this clause? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here. --Trovatore 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the third sentence of the MOS: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, except in direct quotations, where the original text is generally preserved." If WPian A translates a foreign-language quote into English and inserts it into an article, can WPian B tweak it to conform with the MOS in ways that are unlikely to affect the substantive meaning? Tony 10:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, off the top of my head, I think if B is competent to translate from the original and is willing to look back at the original while making mods, then there's no problem. Otherwise I'd be careful because B might miss some subtlety while translating English-to-English. But I wouldn't want to put a flat ban even then -- maybe A is not particularly competent in English, and B just wants to fix some blatant error of spelling or grammar. --Trovatore 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to distinguish 3 issues here
 * 1) Copyright violation; using unauthorised bits of copyright protected works. This is simply illegal (theft of intellectual property) and should be avoided at all times (if only for Wiki's liability)
 * 2) Plagiarism; although strictly not always illegal, in the academic society this is regarded highly unethical (and may lead to the ending of your tenure). Plagiarism is the verbatim inclusion of parts of other works without making clear that it is a verbatim copy. Whether this is copyrighted, public domain, Hamlet, a songtext, bits of an interview by a public person, or whatever does not matter. Verbatim use of existing text without proper treatment (quotes and reference) is plagiarism.
 * 3) Use of sources. When sources are used to inform a text but the actual text is a rewording of the used source, this is not plagiarism but considered normal use of source. Even so it is considered unethical to use ideas without proper referencing, and in the light of Wiki leaving out sources would almost always inevitably clash with original research policies
 * I would support fairly strong guidelines against plagiarism for Wiki. Arnoutf 08:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you are using someone's words verbatim. You could paraphrase text so that it has not a single word in common with the original, and it's still plagiarism if you don't give credit. On the other hand, if you do give proper credit, then it's not plagiarism, even if it's a verbatim copy. --Trovatore 08:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism vs copyvio
SlimVirgin suggested that someone, up above, might have been "advocating plagiarism" and asked if he knew that plagiarism and copyright are separate issues. I'd like to say a few words about the differences here.

Copyright is a legal matter, an artificial property right intended, in the long run, to enrich the public domain by encouraging writers and other creators to produce material that will eventually be added to it. We are very careful about copyright because we don't want the WikiMedia foundation to get sued (whether or not we individually agree with the theory behind it). The essence of copyright is whether you are using the words that others put together in a certain way, not their ideas.

Plagiarism, on the other hand, is not a legal matter at all, but a question of academic ethics. Its essence has nothing to do with whether you use someone else's words, but only with whether you give credit.

Now, in cases where text is taken directly from a public domain or GFDL source and modified, there is no copyright issue for the PD text, and there is no copyright issue with GFDL provided we comply with its terms (which require attribution).

Is there a plagiarism issue? No, as long as we give credit. As long as you properly acknowledge the creators of the material, you are not plagiarizing (though you may be committing a copyright violation, but not in the cases discussed).

Some contributors seem to be talking about a different issue, what in Europe is called "moral rights of authorship" or some such, the right to control modifications of a work. But that's a copyright issue, and we're talking about cases where the copyright has expired or is licensed to us. Making such derivative works is not plagiarism, nor, in the cases we're discussing, is it a copyright violation. --Trovatore 08:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Copyright is not a Style issue. Giving credit is a Citation and Verifiability issue (in the Wikipedia environment; these also help with the ethical environment). Cut-and-paste may include unusual styles to be ruthlessly edited.  (SEWilco 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

What is a Quotation
I see the MoS suggests styles for Quotations but does not define what is a Quotation. (SEWilco 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Why quotation marks are not the real issue
Let me use a specific example to illustrate why I have major reservations about the way this proposal is headed. In the article XanGo, I added the following: ''Mangosteens are harvested from all over south-east Asia and are pureed before they’re shipped to the United States; there the drink is produced using proprietary techniques. The juice is then sold in the U.S. and (as of mid-2007) exported to Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore and Sweden.'' That was a minor rewrite of several sentences from the source, which I cited, a [Malaysian newspaper article.  First, note that the sentences are absolutely factual, and facts cannot be copyrighted.  Second, suppose I'd used exact wording from the article (instead of what I wrote), and had put that in quotation marks.  Now suppose (as happens on more than one occasion at Wikipedia) that a subsequent editor decides to revise the sentences slightly, for better readability, succinctness, whatever.  Should the quotation marks be removed? (I hope the answer is NOT "No, because the sentences should be left as is.)  And, assuming that the answer is "Yes, it's no longer a direct quote", then why are we obsessed with quotation marks when they're going to disappear anyway.

In short, I think that it's very important (a) that information added to articles cite a source (in fact, I'd support a proposal that any addition of more than a sentence or so of text MUST be supported by a citation; failing that, it should be reverted on sight), and (b) that Wikipedia articles should only contain a limited amount of information from any one source not in the public domain (so, for example, no more than a paragraph or so from a newspaper article). It's these two points that I think are at the heart of the problem of plagarism, NOT the failure to put quotation marks around one or two (paraphrased?) sentences from a cited source. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's try an example which is closer to what is being discussed. The Mangosteens sentence above is not from a public domain publication, and we've been referring to public domain material.  Here is an example involving public domain text, from a copyright-expired book published in 1900 by Keeler, where a significant amount of the Wikipedia article text is from that book.  In this edit to Aralia spinosa I added material from Keeler, marking sections of text with a reference to the source.  Most of this is statement of fact which can be easily confirmed through various means, so it does not seem required to quote this as being Keeler's opinion (unlike her opinion of her dogs).  Rewriting was encouraged and was discussed so alteration is expected.  The densely phrased description of characteristics of specific parts of the plants is still useful and relevant to the article, and should be accurate except where biology terminology changed since 1900.  Some other Keeler material had to be changed, such as referring to Oklahoma by that name instead of its 1900s territorial name.  (SEWilco 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Because we're discussing style here, is there anything wrong with the style of the Aralia spinosa article? It hasn't had many alterations since this edit despite some discussion about it.  Prose is preferred to the bulleted list style, but rewriting the detailed items requires an editor who is familiar with the topic, as mentioned in the "was discussed" item above.  Would putting quotation marks around sections of the article would improve it?  (SEWilco 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure this is the best example. I read the Keeler when this issue first came up in discussion, and the material you used is clearly marked to its source, and has been extensively rewritten.  In addition, because what you added from Keeler were botanical descriptions of the plant, I checked another source to somewhat verify that a similar description was still attached to this plant, and since it's not a Scroph, I wasn't too worried.  If I felt that you had taken a substantial amount of material solely owed to Keeler, even though Keeler is in the public domain, I would have asked you to include a note in the article, the equivalent of the "this article incorporates text from the 1911 Britannica which is in the public domain."  I apologize for any confusion, however, as I thought this was a specific article we were discussing, that it neede 21st century anglified, and the text included, from Keeler, is actually from a botanical description of the tree, which is generally the botanical description used today.  I can't verify the accuracy of my own words here as I'm rather busy, but I don't think this article is the example.  I think that when an article incorporates text from the Public Domain it should always be clearly marked as such, because plagiarism isn't the same thing as copyright violation, and we must guard for both, not only the latter.  The article SEWilco cites does not, as far as I remember from my original look, incorporate any original text clearly attributable to the creation of Keeler, without seriously rewriting it.  Should any of this be incorrect, I take the blame for not being clear.
 * Copyright violations and plagiarism are both concerns. KP Botany 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm behind on this debate, but I'm still not sure that I see why plagiarism is a concern. Copyvio is a concern.  Lack of sourcing is a concern, because of verifiability.  But plagiarism?  To me, plagiarism is an academic concept - claiming something is your original work, when it is not.  In Wikipedia, we make no claim to originality - indeed, it is discouraged.  We are not being marked on our work, or paid for it.  Where a public domain source text is available to us - 1911 EB for some articles, Catholic Encyclopedia for others - we should take from it what is useful, without feeling the need to put entire paragraphs in quotes.  Except where it is in violation of copyright, or where no source is given at all (violating sourcing requirements), I don't see why plagiarism per se is something we need to worry about.  TSP 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who fought plagiarism for three decades (as a college teacher), I find that this idea has a certain seduction. For an editor to claim authorship as her own in Wikipedia, no matter whether that is true or false, perverts the sense of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And it seems clear that Wikipedians who are academics are much more often students and tenured faculty, rather than those whose career rests on having publications clearly attributable to them, for that very reason.


 * To me, the issue of quotes is much more serious. In any venue, misquotation is at least as serious as plagiarism, and in Wikipedia more so: Wikipedia makes no claim for originality, but it aspires to accuracy. A number of times I have reverted well-meaning "copy edits" to quoted passages. I think it behooves us all to protect and cherish quotations, and when that is no longer possible, to remove the quotation marks, and worry only about copyvio, not about plagiarism.--Curtis Clark 14:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many reasons, first and foremost of which is you don't claim you created something that you didn't. I can't actually get around seeing why anyone thinks it is okay to claim that you created something that you didn't, so I can't go much further with that one.  However, there are tertiary issues with claiming something you didn't write.  First, if there are problems with it and it gets copied from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia becomes known as the source of the problems, what then?  Then you own up that you're not to blame, because you didn't write it, you just claimed to?  Second, not falsefying your ownership limits issues with copyright, and established your credibility.  The more you lie, whatever it is about, the more likely to lie you are perceived to be.  So, the suggestion that Wikipedia should create an atmosphere of being the creator of multiple falsehoods has serious disadvantages and no advantages.  There just really are not many advantages to lying about your creations, whether you are getting paid and lying, or whether you are lying for free.  It simply doesn't do anything for the project.  At all.  KP Botany 04:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with KP as far as he (she?) goes. We should always acknowledge the source, even if it's in the public domain. Where I differ with what some here have seemed to imply is that we have to make the acknowledgment so detailed that you can tell, just from the text, which sentences in the article came from which specific source. This is desirable when reasonably feasible, but is not a necessary condition for avoiding plagiarism -- a mere once-per-article notice suffices for that. --Trovatore 04:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this, I like the notices on the bottom of the page that simply say this article incorporates material from a public domain source. I wish I could find one, they stand out from the regular references, and they seem to cover just what is need, acknowledgement that some portion of the article comes from a public domain resource.
 * Ah, here it is this nice little tag, KP Botany 04:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No the tags at the bottom are not enough, for they do not specify what part of the article comes from where. In dealing with articles on a historical subject, I very much want to know what is guaranteed to be out of date. To not specify is my my opinion both unhelpful and dishonest. "Dishonsest" is a strong word, and I use it deliberately. DGG (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No energy for this
For anyone who might have wondered -- most of my Wiki-related energy these days has been taken up in working a particular article I'm involved with out of a very bad, fully-protected version (an effort that's finally bearing fruit, I'm glad to say); my attention to the issue with plagiarism arose out of that effort. But I'm wiped out. And frankly I'm shocked & demoralized to discover that a significant proportion of Wikipedians think that plagiarism is perfectly okay, just so long as it's only the public domain that's being plagiarized. So, on this issue, okay, fine, plagiarize away, I don't have the energy to fight it. If someone else does, I'll be glad to act in support, but meantime I'll put what energy I do have in completing the job on the article that we're finally getting some movement on. Thanks to all those who spoke out against plagiarism, & my apologies for not being able to follow through here. --Yksin 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)