Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism/Archive 9

In the news
Commentary in a blog, but with useful links to relevant articles. And in the comments a link to this policy. . . dave souza, talk 21:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. "How sad that even the much-maligned Wikipedia holds itself to a higher standard than does the plagiarist Steve Penn". What a backhanded compliment. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Attribution" in section "Where to place attribution"
Regarding the present text in Where to place attribution, in particular the last paragraph beginning "In such cases, please consider": the word "Attribution" is so nebulous, and in this particular case so useless, it makes no sense to me to include it. The template itself should make it clear, and always does in my experience, that it is an attribution. This should not be suggested as a general practice, or even considered as a practice. This paragraph should be removed. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If it does not go at the bottom of the section where should it be placed? -- PBS (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The "References" section of the article seems like the right place to me, like the section says without the offending paragraph. That last paragraph giving a placement suggestion is not good advice.  Putting "Attribution" is not good advice.(end of sentence) It is like putting "end of sentence" after every period.  Just a useless piece of information stating the obvious.  What else does one put in a references section?  Just attributions I think.  You could call the whole section "Attributions" instead of "References" or "Sources" and it would probably be more meaningful, but why not just call it "References" or "Sources" like most of the other articles. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no suggestion in this guideline that the section should be called anything but References (or Sources or what ever is advised in WP:FNNR). General references go in a references section. Where among the general references would you place the references from which text has been copied? -- PBS (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe what Bob Burkhardt is talking about is this: "In such cases consider adding the attribution statements at the end of the Reference section directly under a line consisting of Attribution in bold...." "Attribution" in bold becomes a de facto subheader. If I'm understanding Bob, he finds it redundant. I've always done it just like whoever placed this one. That's what I seem to encounter most often when I come upon articles incorporating such text - a note in the reference or notes section above the footnotes or general references. I've also found it at the bottom of the page or below the body of the article and above the reference section (my least favorite placement). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In an article with few citations such as the one you mentioned (Next Generation Data Communications), providing the PD attribution is in the References section it does not really matter where such a citation is placed as it is prominent. But in articles which have more inline citations, and a Notes and References section, (such as John Lilburne) where should the general reference to the Public domain text be placed?

Also a couple of years ago most attribution templates listed in Category:Attribution templates did not allow a full citation to be added. So an article required a full citation in the references section, and another entry for text attribution. Over the last two years some of these templates have been altered to take parameters similar to those used by Citation so they can be used for text attribution, and take a full citation (including volume, page numbers, ref=harv etc), but by no means all of them have been controverted eg Mignet. If text is copied into a Wikipedia article from Mignet (1824) and fully cited (with short and long citations) within the article, where should the attribution template be placed if not at the bottom of the references section under Attribution?

When we were discussing the use of PD text in articles on this talk page and in other places, there were a number of editors who are against any verbatim copying of text from PD sources that was not either quoted or placed after in inline text attribution.

This would have made the copying the complete text of articles from sources -- in the way that is done at the moment for articles from PD encyclopaedias and dictionaries such as EB1911 and the DNB -- very different. Placing the attribution after a bold line saying Attribution in the references section helped to quiet worries that such copying was plagiarism. Removing the advise to display prominently that a Wikipeida article contains copied text is likely to renew the editorial debate on the ethics of copying PD text unless the text is quoted, or proceeded with an intext attribution. -- PBS (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that "attribution" means, essentially, "Credit." "Reference" means essentially the same thing. The issue seems to be redundancy. I would myself put the attribution template at the top of the Reference section in that article, as I always do. I can't see why using the subheader "attribution" makes any difference in concerns about whether or not such copying is plagiarism, since in either case you use exactly the same language to acknowledge the copying. :/


 * I'm very familiar with the history of this guideline and discussions that have taken place here:, . :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I of course know that and I did not mean to give offence, but when one writes on talk pages other than to user talk, the audience is a general one and my reply was written for those who may not have been involved in the previous discussion and have not read the archives. To address you specific point. Whether they are grouped at the top of the bottom we seem to be agreed that they should not be placed within the list of author sorted general references. I think it is preferable to place them at the bottom and I think that the bold line helps identify them and explain their placement. As a general rule,I do not think that the attributions should be placed at the top of the general references section because as the article is edited in the usual way, over time it becomes less and less relevant until eventually the attribution can be removed. -- PBS (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not offended. Just wanted to be sure you recognized me. :D I'm comfortable with the differences in our approach and have never objected to the language "consider adding" in our guideline, as it permits variance. I can do it the way I like it; you can do it the way you like it. If someday the community at large decides to reach consensus, we may standardize the approach and change the language accordingly. I am not myself particularly bothered by the redundancy; I'm just trying to clarify the discussion by pointing out what I believe Bob is saying. I'm not sure, though, if he's still interested in the discussion. :) But I did want to point out to him that the attribution section is not by any means mandatory. And, yes, I would not put the attribution within the author-sorted list. I think it should be separated out or placed inline. (The only time I do inline is when I am footnoting every instance of copying and using PD-notice - which I generally would only do if copying is minimal. In that case, I would not give undue weight to a specific source by calling it out separately, which might imply more copying than exists.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am bothered by the redundancy. It is not informative.  It is just puzzling.  The public domain message says all that needs to be said.  Notices that are very general and don't indicate the location in a large source are problematic, but the word "attribution" is not going to help them.  Again in that case the PD notice is the main thing, and "attribution" is just an unhelpful add on, adding to the confusion. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In the examples given on this page, I think the citations are fairly specific. It would be better if the PD notice was in the citation itself, obviating the necessity for a separate notice somewhere else.  But add the word "attribution" has not helped people comprehend anything. It is just puzzling.  Like a piece of graffiti. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Wikipedia
Do we have an article on plagiarism of Wikipedia? If not, it may be worth starting one (Plagiarism of Wikipedia). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is copyrighted. While copyright and plagiarism are different, it is difficult plagiarize a copyrighted work without also violating its copyright. Therefore, "Plagiarism of Wikipedia" is almost always a minor consideration: see Standard CC-BY-SA violation letter. An external re-user of Wikipedia material can always cure the plagiarism by adhering to our Copyright license, which requires attribution -Arch dude (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Free texts
Philip, can you please stop directing this page in the direction of emphasis on free sources and copyright issues? It's about plagiarism, and we deal with free texts in their own section. Saying that when quoting and closely paraphrasing, intext attribution "may be" required leaves open that it may not be, and it's this attitude that has caused enormous problems for individual editors on WP, leading people to make mistakes that follow them for the rest of their WP careers, or which cause them to leave. I've also discovered recently that similar problems have occurred with the education program, because it seems the students were led to believe that intext attribution wasn't needed, which led to plagiarism.

We really have to stop fudging this issue because of a tiny-minority concern about free texts, and a focus on copyright rather than plagiarism. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In terms of free sources, would we say, "According to Wikiworld Fact,...." if we are following the author's language? We can and do copy from other wikis frequently, and this is fine, so long as licensing terms are met and so long as the facts and sources are independently checked. (I'm not talking about other Wikipedia articles, but about non-WMF wikis and other crowd sourced options.) I agree that INCITE is important, but there are cases where they may not be required. They are also not routinely used when an entire article is copied from a public domain source - not all of which position their copying as quotation. Where and how often would they be used? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of an article that was copied from a non-WMF wiki? I'm not doubting what you say, but I don't think I've ever seen one. Not sure what you mean about INCITE sometimes not being needed; INCITE is policy for anything challenged or likely to be challenged, which is just about everything (see WP:CHALLENGE). SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just now understood what you mean about "according to Wikiworld Fact ..." when copying an entire article. No, that's not what's meant and this is what I mean about getting copyright concerns confused with plagiarism. If you're copying an article from elsewhere in its entirety, you're not including that material unacknowledged within an article you're writing yourself, so it's a different concern. Still not sure what you mean about INCITE though, and don't know what you mean about where and how often they (what?) would be used. Apologies if I'm being dense. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are many, linked from their attribution templates, such as Template:Citizendium. There are also a few that don't have attribution templates; I've processed permissions for Scholarpedia. The idea of incorporating content from open source sites is that it can then be used to build. We only take content from sites that permit modification for that reason. So if we have an editor who copies an article entirely from Citizendium (which definitely has happened), that article can later be expanded to include paragraphs and passages from editors who constructed material on their own or who might even have taken it from other free sources. And suppose the original contributor builds an article with 80% Citizendium content and 20% original, or even flips that ratio. Is he to INCITE Citizendium at all? It isn't a reliable source, but that doesn't matter if the content meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. There's nothing to stop an editor from adding six paragraphs from Citizendium to various points of an existing article, for that matter. At what point should he ever INCITE it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * An editor copying material from Citizendiun shouldn't cite Citizendium under INCITE, because Citizendium is the publisher he has copied material from, not the reliable source that supports the material. Under licensing rules, he will have to mention somewhere that he has copied from Citizendium, but that's a separate issue. INCITE only deals with citing sources that support material. This is the problem with forcing a page on plagiarism to include prominent reference to the copying and licensing of free material, which is a separate issue. It means the page is at points confused and confusing. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I may not be understanding you. Are you saying that Citizendium would not be counted as a source in the sentence beginning, "In addition to this, when quoting or closely paraphrasing source material...."? If you want to distinguish between source as in "reliable source of information" and source as in "point of origin of one's words and ideas", I think a lot more development would be needed. It also sounds in the note just above as though you're suggesting that plagiarism is not possible when the origin material is free, which is much at odds with the traditional interpretation of this guideline and the community at large. Traditionally, this document has held that free sources can be plagiarized, but are not when a proper attribution template or other note is provided. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hoping to find a bridging version here with . I agree with Slim that we really need to emphasize the importance of intext attribution. But I also agree that there are exceptions, which I've tried to detail in the footnote. If this proposal doesn't meet consensus, I would support returning to PBS's wording there pending an agreement on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Numbers
How many articles on Wikipedia are copies of, or incorporate a significant amount of, free texts from elsewhere? I'm assuming it's possible to know this by looking at how many articles carry the appropriate templates. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If we had a bot, maybe. :) There's a ton of templates. Not all, but many at Category:Attribution templates are PD and copyleft templates. There are 73 US government templates alone. Using transclusion count and Template:EB1911 (which is specifically for articles including content copied from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica), there's 12,162. If we want, we may be able to get a bot to count all of them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks, I was hoping there was an easy way to work it out. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations
This page is about plagiarism, not copyright, but the "addressing plagiarism" section starts with a section about copyright. It's also not clear what it means:


 * "If you find duplicated text, or media, consider first whether the primary problem is plagiarism, or copyright infringement. If the source is not public domain, or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia, or if you suspect that it is not, you should address it under the copyright policies."

How do the first and second sentence relate to each other? They seem to say that if you find duplicated text, it might be plagiarism and not copyvio, but report it as copyvio anyway. This has led lots of people to be reported for copyvio with all the attendant fallout, when all they did was copy a sentence or two, which is plagiarism, not something that rose to the level of copyvio. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Copyright and plagiarism are related, which is why the copyright problems board header has long discussed plagiarism. If content rises to a violation of our copyright policies - or to WP:COPYVIO - it should be handled according to that policy. Policy trumps guidelines, and that needs to be made clear. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, but the section doesn't say that. It implies that all plagiarism of non-free texts should be treated as a copyright violation. That's what needs to be changed, and moved elsewhere on the page so that it's less prominent. This page has to focus on plagiarism and not be taken over by a separate concern. Yes, they are related, but they're far from identical and the confusion has caused damage to individuals over the years, so I'd like to get it straightened out. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. "Plagiarism" is a really loaded word; people get angry about it. Those who are accused get angry; those who do the accusing get angry. People have been blocked indefinitely for plagiarism since long before I started working in the area. (I'd be interested in knowing what individuals you think have been damaged because of confusion over what violates Plagiarism and what violates Copyrights, but that may be a separate discussion.) I think the first question anybody addressing concerns of copying or close paraphrasing needs to consider is whether or not it violates Copyrights. If it does, then the handling must accord with policy at Copyright violations. Certainly, we should clarify how to tell the difference, if you think that's murky. But I don't believe it should be less prominent. That needs to be considered and eliminated first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to give examples of editors who have left after being accused of plagiarism. To look at another example, I think the students are being damaged by it. The handouts they're given don't (that I have seen) advise them to use in-text attribution; the latest one doesn't mention it at all despite all the discussion. I wonder if this is because of a fear that they would write "Smith said," followed by ten paragraphs copying Smith; that is, I wonder whether fear of copyright violation is interfering with advice about plagiarism. Granted, the students shouldn't be relying on WMF handouts for how to avoid plagiarism, but if they do rely on them, the advice about in-text attribution is missing.


 * I disagree that copyright issues should be dealt with first on this page. The danger is that people will report any instance of plagiarism (which could be as little as copying one sentence) as copyvio. Then we get these terrible CCI pages where every edit someone has made is checked; that page says that only five instances are needed to open a page. But five instances of plagiarism or copyright violation? It doesn't say. So yes, I think this is murky and that the murkiness is causing damage in all kinds of areas. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it does; it says, "As a rule of thumb, at least five instances of clear copyvios (copy/pasting of unlicensed third party material; clear derivative works) should be required to file a case." The opening paragraph says, "Contributor copyright investigations is a process intended to identify users who have repeatedly introduced copyright violations into many articles or uploaded many copyrighted images, typically over a long period of time, and to systematically remove this infringing material. The process begins with the filing of a CCI by an editor who notices a large-scale pattern of copyright violation by an individual contributor, and if approved, will lead to a survey of their complete contributions followed by removal of any material suspected to be infringing." "Copyright violations" and copyvios are used repeatedly in the instructions. ) The CCI process is pretty clear about what it's for. In terms of the plagiarism handout, it is challenging to write a one page advice sheet that covers all the pitfalls of copy-pasting that have plagued students, but I don't believe the answer is to ignore the fact that the first thing that must be checked on content duplication is copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that your insistence that close paraphrasing is OK has caused many more problems for many editors than the wording here about copyright (see Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism/Archive 8 for more details). -- PBS (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Of course close paraphrasing is okay, as is quoting. But you need to say in the text who you are quoting or almost quoting. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that close paraphrasing has led to many copyright violations by editors who are not as gifted as you knowing the limits to close paraphrasing. It also causes problems of lack of information for the reader, because the reader can not tell by reading the text whether what was said is being is a summary or the authors original words. This is not something that happens with using quotations. -- PBS (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

INTEXT
I've removed these words from INTEXT: " ... or originates from a free source."

This confusion with free material is a category mistake caused by the use of the word "source" instead of "publisher" when dealing with free texts. When you copy material from another wiki, that wiki is the publisher. It is not a "source" that is supporting the material in the article.

Imagine that we copy from free wiki A: "John Smith wrote that Jones's views amounted to "absurd nonsense" and a "monument to ignorance." When we add that to WP, we (of course) don't say "According to free wiki A, John Smith wrote that Jones's views amounted to 'absurd nonsense' and a 'monument to ignorance.'" But we do still need to retain the in-text attribution to John Smith. We could not say: "Jones's views amount to 'absurd nonsense' and a 'monument to ignorance.'" If we did that, we would be plagiarizing John Smith (not to mention violating NPOV by placing the material in WP's voice).

The issue of in-text attribution is only concerned with sourcing and plagiarism, not copyright violation. The issue of copying free texts over is an entirely separate matter – apples and oranges. It's important on this page not to get the two confused. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that it would be clear to put INTEGRITY directly after INCITE and have INTEXT as the third bullet point. This is because INCITE and INTEGRITY are both to do with citations with INTEGRITY supporting INCITE while INTEXT is not about citations. what did you mean by your edit comment "restore order; INCITE and INTEXT should stay together, and it flows better".


 * SV if all three of these points are going to be in the lead then they have to be written in such a way that they accommodate and summarise usage which includes the large "Copying material from free sources" section. Why did you remove the link to that section?


 * Also I see that you have reverted my revert. That is not in the spirit of WP:BRD. Please leave my revet in place until a consensus emerges on what to do. -- PBS (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please leave the order as it was, Philip. I've explained in several places here on this page why I removed the free-sources sentence -- basically because it's a category error, and this page isn't about the tiny percentage of free texts that we host or about copyright, it's about plagiarism. Could you read my posts above and let me know what you think? Also, I'd appreciate it if you would make whatever change you want without wholesale reverting. You removed the MoS advice, for example. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The MOS advise is in my opinion misleading in this context, and does not need to be included here (which is why I went for a total revert and not a selective one (to answer your question on my talk page). -- PBS (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not hung up on the term free source, change it to something that you think is more appropriate if you like, but the term has to cover copyleft and copyright free sources. You say "Imagine that we copy..." but that is covered by the paragraph "If the external work ...". What is more confusing for editors is if the lead of this plagiarism guideline does not explain that "Copying material from free sources" means it does not have to be placed in quotation marks etc. Here is an example of an experienced editor who read this lead and made that mistake. -- PBS (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Philip, this page has been a mess for a long time, and I would like to try to fix it. If you're going to revert wholesale everything you don't like, including reference to the MoS (which is completely in context here), then no progress will be possible. That is why the page is stagnant, because no one wants to have to deal with this. But its lack of clarity has caused numerous problems over the years, and one or two people can't be allowed to stand in the way of getting it fixed.


 * This page isn't about copyright or about the tiny percentage of pages copied from elsewhere. It's also not about attributing whole articles to the free publications we have copied from. It's about attributing material within articles to reliable sources, which is an entirely separate concept. Did you read my posts about this confusion being based on a category mistake? I'd appreciate your views on that. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is about anything and everything that may be considered plagiarism, which most certainly has included content copied from free sources, in part or entirely. That's why there have been sections dedicated to that since before it was adopted by community consensus as a guideline. :) What you see as "stagnation" I see as stability. I think some of your changes have been quite good, but I don't think we should change substance of the guideline without making sure there is consensus first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale reverting
Why did you remove the MoS from the lead (twice)? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * [edit clash] see previous section. You have to give me time to reply, looking up diffs takes time (and I don't seem to type as fast as you). -- PBS (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Would you mind restoring it, in that case? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would prefer we not, until we establish consensus. Your statement that "The requirement for in-text attribution when quoting or closely paraphrasing sources does not mean that, when copying extensive content from free or copy-left publications, the original publishers of that content must be named throughout the text" seems to be missing the point. If Citizendium is the publisher, who is the author of that content? User:Ilovepolitics? I know of no definition of plagiarism that finds public domain or copyleft sources unplagiarizable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What objection could there possibly be to saying the MoS requires in-text attribution? It would help editors who weren't aware of it.


 * I don't understand your point about public domain material being something that can't be plagiarized. No one has said that. Maggie, you're mixing up two completely separate issues here. Did you see my post above about this being a category mistake? When we ask for a source, we're asking for a reliable source that supports something in the article. We're not asking who wrote the article itself, or who first published it. The kind of attribution that you're referring to (e.g. SlimVirgin wrote this article for Wikipedia) is not what is meant by in-text attribution. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if my note was confusing. My point is that if you're saying we are not required to acknowledge publishers, then unless this content is unplagiarizable, it follows that we must acknowledge the authors. Are you suggesting that copying somebody else's words is not plagiarism as long as you cite a reliable source to substantiate the information, perhaps the one he cited? I'm sure that can't be the case, but I can't imagine what else you mean. I'd be interested in seeing you propose something on the talk page that would make this clear. If it gains consensus, I don't imagine there will be any barriers to implementation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you address the first issue first? Why do you object to us telling editors that the MoS requires in-text attribution?


 * Next point: I didn't say we are not required to acknowledge publishers when we copy things over, or anything similar. We do that in a note at the end of the page usually -- but that is not in-text attribution.


 * I have literally no idea what the rest of your post means, sorry. Did you understand my point about the category mistake? I think we are talking past each other. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I object to the part I quoted above - the part that goes "The requirement for in-text attribution when quoting or closely paraphrasing sources does not mean that, when copying extensive content from free or copy-left publications, the original publishers of that content must be named throughout the text". That's why I quoted it. It implies either that we must offer int-text attribution for the authors (as opposed to publishers) of that content, or that these authors for some reason do not require acknowledgement. I made reference in note above to the difference between source as "reliable source of information" and source as in "point of origin of one's words and ideas" and the fact that if you are trying to make this distinction I believe much more clarity would need to be provided. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference to the MoS in the lead

 * If you look at the top of this section, it is about the MoS, so could we deal with that first? Do you object to the lead saying: "The Manual of Style requires in-text attribution when quoting a full sentence or more." Followed by the footnote: "See Manual of Style: 'The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section. When preceding a quotation with its attribution, avoid characterizing it in a biased manner.'" SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. It seems you and I have been focusing on different things. If you look at the subject of this section, it's about "wholesale reverting." I object to the restoration of the content pending further discussion; until the question is resolve, I support the WP:STATUSQUO. In terms of the specifics, I object to the lead replacing the existing footnote with that text. I would not object to the addition of that text. And because we seem to have some difficulty understanding one another, I am uncomfortable with the content in the proposed new bullet. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate a response to the MoS issue so that we can tick one issue as dealt with, but we can't gain consensus if you won't reply. Do you object to the MoS requirement for in-text attribution being referred to in the lead? And if you do object, why? (Yes, we are talking about additional text, as the diff shows.) The additional text would be: "The Manual of Style requires in-text attribution when quoting a full sentence or more."


 * The reason I want to include it that it's standard practice to refer to other policies and guidelines that are directly relevant, and the information would be helpful to editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand how " In terms of the specifics, I object to the lead replacing the existing footnote with that text. I would not object to the addition of that text. " is unclear. :/ Oh! Maybe you weren't aware that the text replaced an existing footnote? If you want to add that content to what is already there (by "that content", I mean the material to which you refer in your lead paragraph), I have no objection. I think the material you are removing and the other material you added in that edit needs more ironing out, first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. I'll restore the MoS sentence and the part of the footnote that quoted the MoS, but I'll leave everything else as it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Category mistake
Trying to explain this again. A category mistake is when you treat one thing as though it has the properties of a second thing. So here the issue is that some editors are using the words "attribution" and "source" in two ways, and not noticing the switch in meaning:


 * 1. In-text attribution refers to the process of naming the source of the article's content (not the source of the article itself). For example, the source could be a book written by a philosopher, Professor Smith, which is used to support a philosophical position within the article. Professor Smith's book is a reliable source, and we say we are "attributing" the information to that source. When we do it by naming the source in the sentence ("Smith argues that ..."), that is called "in-text attribution." That is the only thing that "in-text attribution" refers to.


 * 2. The word "attribution" is also used by a small number of editors who copy free texts into Wikipedia. They use the word to refer to naming the original publisher of those texts in the article, so they are not copying it without giving credit. They also call the original publisher the "source" of those texts. So if Citizendium publishes an article, and those editors copy it into Wikipedia, they make a note at the end of the page that the article comes from Citizendium. But that is not what is meant by in-text attribution, and that is a different meaning of the word "source." Citizendium is not the reliable source of any part of the article's content. Saying the article came from them is not "in-text attribution."

An analogy is the difference between a picture frame and a picture, between form and content. In-text attribution refers only to the naming of the reliable sources that support the content. It does not refer to publishers such as Citizendium, who supply the form.

So when we say: "Add in-text attribution when you copy or closely paraphrase another author's words or flow of thought, unless the material ... originates from a free source," we are mixing up two different senses of the word "attribution".

Is that any clearer? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the way this seems to suggest number 2 is a Wikipedia-only usage. :D According to Merriam-Webster, attribution is "the act of attributing; especially : the ascribing of a work (as of literature or art) to a particular author or artist". Attribution has the same meaning in both 1 and 2. The difference is that for some content, attribution is a legal requirement (for licensing) as well as a moral requirement (to avoid plagiarism). Maybe we can clarify the difference here if you answer this. One of our users, we'll call him Bob, is working on an article on Politician X. He copies a sentence from The New York Times about the politician. Bob then copies a sentence from Citizendium about Politician X. Does the potential for plagiarism apply equally to The New York Times and Citizendium? If not, why not? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Bob would be plagiarizing in both cases if he doesn't say where he got the material. And if he wants to avoid it, he could say: "According to John Smith writing in the NYT," and "according to Larry Sanger writing in C" (if we allowed that, but we don't, for other reasons). Or if Sanger was relying on a source and had cited it, it would be "according to Smith, cited by Larry Sanger in C." With "according to Smith" in the text, and "cited by Larry Sanger in C" in the footnote. But it's a bad comparison because people don't copy single sentences over from C. They copy whole articles, and when they copy whole articles, or whole sections of articles, they're copying the sources over too. So again, the form versus content distinction is crucial, and it's what's causing the confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, people can add content piecemeal. There's no policy that says somebody cannot add a single sentence or two from a compatibly licensed source. But the sources they copy from Citizendium are not the origin of the words, unless they're copying a quote. Sanger is as much the author of his Citizendium pieces as John Smith is of his NYT pieces. Just to be sure we're clear, I do not advocate using INTEXT attribution for Citizendium. I do not want to inadvertently lead people to believe that it is required or, conversely, to lead them to believe that such sources cannot be plagiarized. They can, but the attribution (to avoid plagiarism) requirements have traditionally differed. All that has ever been required to avoid charges of plagiarism from such sources is a proper attribution template. (Such templates are, of course, also required for license compliance from Citizendium, but are not required for PD sources. For those, there use is purely to avoid plagiarism.)  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose I'm confused about the substance here. No one has said that Citizendium can't be plagiarized because it's a free source. Of course it can. In fact I'd go further than most and would say that we do plagiarize it when all we do is add a little note at the end of our article. It's not a copyvio, but to my eyes it's plagiarized because it's not our work. But I know I'm in a minority there. On the same note, I feel my work on WP has been plagiarized when I see people selling it on Amazon, but again, not a copyvio.


 * The point of my footnote that you objected to was to make clear that we don't need intext attribution when copying over free texts. And you agree with that, so I'm not sure what the point of disagreement is. Here is the text of the footnote:


 * "The requirement for in-text attribution when quoting or closely paraphrasing sources does not mean that, when copying extensive content from free or copy-left publications, the original publishers of that content must be named throughout the text; in those cases, attribution is provided in a footnote or in the references section at the end of the page."


 * I don't mind if it's worded differently, but do you disagree with its substance? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's getting late here, but I'll try to clarify. Hopefully I won't just muddy it further. :) The Citizendium article is a source. It's not a reliable source, but it is nevertheless the source of the content, even if the verification for the content is drawn from another source. While it's not necessarily practicable to use in-text attribution for many instances of free and copy-left sourcing, I don't want to devalue these sources in terms of respecting their contributions and their role. I realize you may not intend that, but I fear it is the effect of the use of the word "source" and particularly the italicizing of it. As I'm pondering this, perhaps part of the issue I'm having comes from my past experiences with contributors who argue that the editors of Wikipedia articles are not "authors" because all they're doing is compiling facts from other sources. I've done a fair amount of defending the right of our contributors to attribution (morally, legally), and I don't want anything in this document to even inadvertently suggest that the creators of such content are lesser - from a moral standpoint - than the creators of the "reliable sources" we use to meet WP:V. The practice described here is accurate; it's the presentation that concerns me. A more nuanced distinction of "sources" might work for me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Would like to fix contradiction
In case this gets lost in the discussion above, I would like to change this, because as written it doesn't mean anything:

"If you find duplicated text, or media, consider first whether the primary problem is plagiarism, or copyright infringement. If the source is not public domain, or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia, or if you suspect that it is not, you should address it under the copyright policies."

First it says "decide whether this is copyright violation or plagiarism." Then it says: "treat it as a copyright violation regardless." So that needs to be changed because it's a contradiction.

That apart, it's leading to CCI pages being created based on someone spotting a few closely paraphrased or copied sentences, which may be examples of plagiarism, but which aren't copyright violations. Then those pages, once opened, sit there for ages unresolved, so we're basically putting editors in the stocks.

What do we want the actual advice to be? It needs to have the structure: "If you find duplicated text ... consider first whether the problem is plagiarism or copyright infringement. If you decide it is plagiarism, do X. If it rises to the level of copyright infringement [and here's a link to a page telling you how to determine that], do Y."

SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Our editors can't determine if content rises to the level of copyright infringement. That's a determination that can only be made by a court of law. They can determine if content violates copyright. I'm fine with clarifying, but don't agree with the specific language you propose. And in the spirit of, can you please identify which CCIs are open for editors who have not violated WP:C? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you please tell me what the difference is between plagiarizing something (e.g. a couple of sentences) and a violation of WP:C, because I can't find an explanation anywhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:C is pretty clear, I think - "Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law 'fair use' doctrine in accordance with our guidelines for non-free content." Use of non-free content outside of the allowance of NFC are violations of WP:C. People who routinely copy content from sources outside of these provisions may well be subject to a CCI. The CCI process is certainly overburdened, but, then, have you looked at the backlog at WP:CP lately? We have wholesale copy-pastes of non-free sources that have been blanked and remain untouched for months. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:C isn't clear, Maggie. It's dense and confusing, and it doesn't say anything about the difference between plagiarism and copyright violation. We may include quotations, but you said in the education program handout that long block quotes are "forbidden" (even though we include them routinely). And what if we quote without quotation marks, and/or without attribution?


 * We have to move the focus away from copyright and focus tightly on the topic of the page, which is how to avoid plagiarism, because that is what people want to know. And it is usually easy to avoid it, so long as you name your source in the text when quoting or near-quoting (or relying on the source heavily in some other way). There really shouldn't be this degree of difficulty trying to straighten it out. I am not trying to undermine the fight against copyright violation on WP or to suggest it doesn't matter. All I am arguing is that this page isn't about that. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some context lost there, I'm afraid. What I said was, " In accordance with WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, policy permits 'brief verbatim textual excerpts' of non-free content and notes that 'Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited'. In terms of law, 'long, block quotations' are copyright violations when they are substantially similar without legal defense, such as fair use. " I believe this is all completely accurate. Quoting non-free content without quotation marks (or other explicit annotation, such as blockquote, and/or without attribution is a violation of WP:NFC, which makes it non-compliant with WP:C by definition. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The new education handout, which I thought you wrote or contributed to (please correct me if I'm wrong) says: "Long verbatim quotations are frowned upon on Wikipedia and, if the source is copyrighted, forbidden." So far as I know, this is false, unless we're talking about such a long quote that fair use could not be claimed, but I don't know what percentage of a text that would involve, or whether percentage is the issue. But for the most part, long blockquotes are fine (which is why we have templates for them), so long as you make clear who you're quoting. If I'm wrong about that, can you point me to the correct section of the copyright policy? — SlimVirgin — (continues after insertion below)


 * I copy-edited an earlier draft. Most of that was based on WP:QUOTEFARM, I understand, and was there prior to my edits. I did add the bit about the forbidding of lengthy quotations from copyrighted sources, which is consistent with WP:NFC - "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". "Brief verbatim textual excerpts" are allowed. NFC has said that for years. Block quotes are certainly all right - as you said in that earlier discussion, 'within reason', but 'reason' is highly subjective (as is the definition of the word "long"). Percentage is not the issue. There is no safe percentage; whether or not a quote is "fair use" is based on four interconnected factors. I think it's a pretty good offering fo ra brief guideline for students. Certainly it's true that there are some out there written by professionals, but they do tend to be copyrighted, and I suspect that LiAnna brought it to the ENB in hopes of taking advantage of this whole crowd-sourcing model we have going here, in order to craft one as close to perfect as we can get. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Back to the question: how do we resolve the contradiction between the two sentences at the top of the section? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this example will help explain my understanding of those two sentences. Let us suppose there is an article about an American Air Force base created a few years ago by an IP address and the initial edit was substantial addition (say 4k). Since then it has been modified, but it is clear that some of the existing text is similar to an article on another site (Site 1).
 * The first thing that has to be asked is is the text on Site 1 a copy of Wikipedia or did the Wikipedia content come from there?
 * The next question: Is the work on the other site copyrighted to them, or have they also copied it from another site ("Site 2").
 * Let us suppose that Site 1 is a commercial site that claims copyright, then Wikipedia's content is a copyright infringement and the text should be deleted from Wikipedia.
 * But if it turns out that the text originated from the US government (Site 2) then it is not a copyright issue but a plagiarism issue because Wikipedia have not attributed the text to Site 2 (the US PD source).
 * So it seems to me that the sentences you have concern about do make sense. -- PBS (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's a helpful explanation. My issue with the two sentences is that they seem (jointly) to say that every instance of plagiarism (from a non-free source) is a copyright violation. And that's surely not correct. My second concern (related but separable) is that it implies that we should deal with every instance of plagiarism of a non-free source as if it were a copyright violation (even if it's not). Doing that would lead to unnecessary escalation. If you look at the section "Addressing the editor involved," that is much kinder advice, which is why I originally removed the two sentences we're discussing, because they're not in keeping with the rest of the page. But if we want to keep them, how can we tweak them to make them more accurate? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The first part of your recommended language above is not bad for me, although "copyright infringement" is not a good direction since we can't determine that...something like "if the content violates copyright or non-free content policy and guideline" might be better, if think clarification is needed. "do y" would, I'm afraid, have one of the effects you seem to fear of taking this over for another issue. There are multiple ways to handle copyright violations, depending on the extensiveness of the issue, how recent it is, etc. A link to the page talking about how to address it would seem to me sufficient. WP:CV101 didn't exist, I don't think, when this guideline was written, but (though I haven't looked at it lately), it might be a good choice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Current policy, as it appears regarding plagiarism, needs high level review
The following is being written by an academic, after finding clear evidence of plagiarism in the article on the historical criminal figure, Elizabeth Báthory. See Talk section, that article.

It seems from this project page that the current Wikipedia policy on plagiarism in its various forms is that the detecting party is directed to either mediate, or correct, the plagiarism that they discover.

This is utter nonsense.

People can generate materials faster than non-automated systems can detect, and far faster than they can possibly be remediated by conscientious parties were there individuals motivated to enter into such a minefield of Wikipedia research and communication in the first place. Even if a conscientious party were to remediate in a particular instance—on first order, to delete all clearly plagiarized material to return integrity to an article—there are no mechanisms in place to prevent reversion of the deletion. That is to say, one who corrects plagiarism must have the unmistakeable, and irrefutable authority to do so.

That is perhaps why no organization of which I am aware tasks peers with engaging their peers to correct such things. It defies any understanding of human nature, and of the actual intricacies of identifying, documenting, communicating over, and actively and expediently remediating plagiarism.

It is no wonder, with such a passive, distributed, and so essentially unmonitored and unenforced approach to such a serious academic and moral-intellectual matter, that this Wikipedia issue recurs, and in particular article instances remains unaddressed for long periods (statement based on all records I could find of past Wikipedia efforts directed at plagiarism).

Bottom line from this editor and academic: Where initial, credible evidence of plagiarism is presented, there needs to be separate, higher level review of the article, and this review needs to result in someone being tasked with immediate editorial action with regard to the article in question.

Someone with authority in Wikipedia central administration, please respond. A Prof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 10 January 2013‎


 * There is no one with authority in Wikipedia central administration - all content, including policies and guidelines, on the site are generated by a vast community of volunteers. There are disparate user rights, but even administrators on the site are bound by the consensus of the broad community. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm as aware of this reality vis-a-vis editing and contributing as the next wiki participant. But there is indeed some sort of central administration (as the far-reaching recent fund-raising and related high level activities clearly attest). If anyone knows how to bring the attention of these individuals to bear, I would appreciate it. A Prof.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Confusing lead
I think that the current version of this guideline is far more confusing than it was back in early November 2010. I suggest that we remove all the stuff from the lead which not about avoiding plagiarism in general.

For example the sentence "In addition to this, when quoting or closely paraphrasing source material, in-text attribution is almost always required" That is very confusing when one is for example considering if an article that include text copied from EB1911 should follow this advise. -- PBS (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would object to removing in-text attribution from the lead. Very few editors are still copying text from old encyclopaedias, or at least I am seeing it less and less. This page is directed at most editors and most articles. The last sentence of the lead addresses the PD issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There not only "old encyclopedias" but new material being released under "free/ioen" licences and there are huge (older) biographies collections, which are pd and an important source for WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As it was you who initiated the changes to the lead to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies "you would say that, wouldn't you?". I am not sure how you come to your conclusion that few ditors are still copying text from old encyclopaedias (personally I have only ever read a small fraction of the articles on Wikiepdia), because we still get lots of problems with people copying copyrighted material (so using the assumption that such editors copy for any convenient source, at least a portion must also be from copyright free sources) and there may be many who still do it (we have projects dedicated to such tasks see for example WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography). But even if no new articles were being created, it would not negate the problem as the guidance is not just for editors creating new articles, but also for editors tackling 1,000 of poorly edited and cited older articles, some of which contain PD text and others which include copyleft material. -- PBS (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand the issue - what's wrong with "almost always required"? The section at Plagiarism explains how free sources are handled. Would "generally" or "frequently" serve better? Or would it suit to add something parenthetical perhaps to specify that intext attribution may not be required when copying or closely paraphrasing from free sources handled in the manner described in the specific section? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's a content issue that not everyone would agree with. If I were to incorporate text into an article I was writing, I would say where it came from in-text to avoid plagiarism. PBS is confusing the copyright issue (which asks: am I allowed to add free text without in-text attribution?) with plagiarism and good writing (where the focus is: I might be allowed legally, but is it a good and honest editorial practice?) I'm not proposing to change the guideline, but I wouldn't want to see the PD point laboured in the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there is an underlying conflict/debate whether (legal) plagiarism, i.e. plagiarism without a copyright violation, really matters. Not everybody in the community is necessarily happy with plagiarism guideline. From my perspective only proper sourcing (to confirm content not authorship) and legality matters. If somebody commits plagiarism beyond that, I personally don't care. I know that many people don't see it that way, but the overemphasis of plagiarism is imho a unjustified spillover from academic writing, where it is needed. The context and goals of WP are different than those of academic writing and one can make an argument that it is not needed here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl it is not a specific sentence in the lead it is the overall impression that the lead gives. For example see this comment by a very experienced editor (the lead as it was then). If one read the lead without reading the details below it is not an unreasonable inference to draw given the current format of the lead, particularly if one uses the WP:PLAGFORM short cut. I think that the lead needs to be rewritten with a brief paragraph on each major section rather than over emphasising the content of WP:PLAGFORM. -- PBS (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (I've just realised that WP:PLAGFORM and WP:PLAGFORMS are broken because the name of the section has changed).-- PBS (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Webpage evidently copied from Wikipedia
Early this hour I found a December 2007 webpage with six paragraphs that almost match much of our biography Astrid Lindgren, sections 1 and 2.

Now I conclude that those six paragraphs were copied from our biography almost verbatim. Vaguely I recall that we have some boilerplate, perhaps a template, for use on our talk page now. At the bottom of Talk:Astrid Lindgren, I made notes that I hope to replace or supplement partly with boilerplate. Do we have it? --P64 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See Copyright problems -- PBS (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Replacement by talk-page template backwardscopy ✅.
 * Thanks. --P64 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Attribution for closely paraphrased PD material
I would like clarification regarding public domain attribution. If an article has a few closely-paraphrased sentences from a public domain source, such as materials authored and published by the U.S. federal government, is it necessary to give that source both the usual inline citation and to specifically identify the source as a public domain source (such as by using an attribution template like )? Or is giving that source the usual inline citation sufficient? Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By consensus, a citation is insufficient - there needs to be notice that content is copied. Alternatively, it is possible to follow more closely with a small amount with in-text attribution. For instance, "The Department of Homeland Security indicates that foo." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible or impossible?
Is it possible to plagiarize/violate copyright using the quote = parameter of Citation? There is at least one editor who thinks it is. Should this twist be addressed in this guideline? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Plagiarize no IMO, as the template associates the quote with the relevant source and so provides fairly precise attribution (assuming the details in the template are correct and complete); copyvio yes, as it would be theoretically possible to violate fair-use requirements. NB: haven't looked at the specific case being discussed there, just speaking to the general issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time swallowing the WP:COPYVIO claim as well. Did you review Fair use?  Regardless, should this guideline cover the use of quote =? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've reviewed that; no, it shouldn't - as I said, unless the citation is flat-out wrong the situation you describe would not be plagiarism. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I'm not really getting straight answers here. "No, it shouldn't" why?  Isn't part of the purpose of this guideline to distinguish between what is plagiarism and what isn't?  Why wouldn't you provide guidance for the overzealous editor who has a weak grasp of the definition of plagiarism?  Furthermore you made the claim that "copyvio yes, as it would be theoretically possible to violate fair-use requirements".  How is that possible given the conditions set forth in Fair use? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of copyright, it is very possible to violate copyright using the quote parameter. Fair use doesn't provide carte blanche for quotations - the use of quotations is limited by the four factors of fair use. For Wikipedia's purposes, fair use is restricted to WP:NFC content and guideline, which does discuss the need to use text transformatively. Very occasionally, an article is listed at WP:CP for overlong quotations. Frequently, these are truncated with a mix of proper paraphrase and more targeted quotes. I agree with Nikkimaria entirely that the case would not be plagiarism - if it's a quotation, it's attributed. A lot of people use the terms plagiarism/copyvio interchangeably, but they are really entirely separate things. In terms of placing that in this guideline, guidelines aren't for outlier issues, generally - if this becomes a common problem, it may be worth defining. But this is the first time that I ever recall hearing of anyone being accused of plagiarism for a quote. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I came expecting a thoughtful response and am disappointed as usual. Had our roles been reversed, here's how I would have responded:
 * "While it's theoretically possible to violate copyright, you'd really have to go to extremes to do so—extremes like copy-n-pasting the contents of a 900-page book into "quote =" or perhaps scooping someone's highly-anticipated soon-to-be bestseller before publication (though I don't know how you'd do this). In practical terms, however, Wikipedia, like any group undertaking, is bound by the lowest common denominator.  In the United States, for example, most people's understanding of copyright comes from their middle and high school English teachers who were mostly interested in limiting their workloads.  So if Wikipedians see more than a phrase presented verbatim in a citation, they're going to almost certainly cry WP:COPYVIO when the likelihood of the cited author feeling wronged at having two or three sentences quoted verbatim on Wikipedia (in a citation verification, nonetheless) is zero.  As for your suggestion, we can help you formulate a proposal to add that case to Plagiarism.  " -- DanielPenfield (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you're disappointed that you didn't get the response you wanted. :/ I would not give you that response, because it probably wouldn't work out well for you. We have copyright standards on Wikipedia. I do not know if your edit fell afoul of them; you didn't ask us to review that, and I didn't look. You asked "is it possible to plagiarize/violate copyright" with the quote field - the answer is probably not and yes, respectively. Those are accurate answers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the dismissal masquerading as a patronizing "message of concern for your well being"... -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. Thank you for the hostile response to a good faith effort to answer your question honestly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Visual aid on plagiarism and copyvios
Hello everyone, I'd like to suggest an addition that I hope will help editors better understand plagiarism and copyright violations for different types of sources. Having been mostly unfamiliar with concepts like "fair use" and "close paraphrasing" before coming to Wikipedia, I've learned quite a bit by navigating the various Wikipedia policies, guidelines, information pages, and essays about copyright and plagiarism. However, it's a lot of information spread out across a number of pages, and I thought that to make things clearer for editors who, like I did, have a limited understanding of many of these concepts, it would be helpful to have a visual aid that shows the relationships between them. What I have in mind is something like this: Does anyone have any thoughts on adding something like this to the page? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea, generally. :) That boils it down nicely. I'm not sure if the plagiarism guideline is the best place - but maybe WP:Copy-paste? I'd do the links a little bit differently. For "Nonfree Source", I'd link to WP:COMPLIC, I think. Copyright violation is a better link for "Copyright violations" than "Copyright violations on history pages", I think. The latter is an historical document and has no real current function. :) And I would nuance "Sparingly" for two reasons: there's more than just sparingly involved in determining if quotation is fair use, and Wikipedia doesn't rely on fair use solely. As WP:NFC notes, content should be fair use and compliant with our guideline. I'd probably go with "Sparingly: None (if complies with WP:NFC)".  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! I had actually meant to link to Copyright violations and not WP:Copyright violations on history pages, but I guess that's what I get for experimenting with this table in VisualEditor ;) I've fixed that above and added in the nuance on "sparingly". I was thinking about including something like this on the Plagiarism guideline (and maybe WP:Copyvio) since it is a more visible page that editors may be more likely to visit, but I suppose that's not a necessity; I agree that WP:Copy-paste would be good place for this too, and perhaps WP:Close paraphrasing. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Function of examples
This is related to the above RFC to the extent that User:Rationalobserver was asking at my talk page how these two examples differ:

Is anybody able to explain how these two usages differ? That is, they both appear to me to be close paraphrasing, without quotation marks, using in-text attribution. Unless there's a substantive, articulable difference, I'd propose just merging it down into one example. (This would pretty much just eliminate any confusion over the placement of the note.)

That said, if there is a substantive, articulable difference, better explanation of that within the guideline would be helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've changed the examples (adapted from the Harvard guide) to make clearer what the distinctions are. Have a look and see what you think. They seem to cover most of the issues we see on WP. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's much clearer. Hopefully others will find it so as well. Thanks, SlimVirgin. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's much better! Thanks, SlimVirgin and Moonriddengirl. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm glad it's okay. Thanks, and, for the feedback. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional forms of plagiarism: with copyright sources
Prototime: with regards to this edit can you please explain why you consider an additional subheading to be "unnecessary", because AFAICT while the other "Forms of plagiarism" apply to both text copied from copyright sources and PD sources, the last one only applies to copyright sourced as it is unusual to use in-text attribution for copyleft and PD sources unless the attribution is needed for non-NPOV reasons. -- PBS (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The headings didn't recognize that distinction--"forms of plagiarism" is a general term, and so is "additional forms of plagiarism" (which is also unnecessarily plural, given that only one type was then given). If that distinction is important to recognize in subheadings (which I'm not sure why it would be, given that the text itself is clear), I'd suggest there be two subheadings that explicitly recognize that difference, one for "Free and nonfree sources", and the other for "Nonfree sources only". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The first (parent) section was for both, the second one just for copyright source. If you wish to change them to something you think more appropriate the by all means do so, but that is not a reason for removing the section header completely. Also such as "external links" and "References" are used in articles whether or not there is more than one entry in the section. Again if you objected to the "unnecessarily plural" you could always make it singular without deleting it. -- PBS (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, the distinction was not clear from the subheading, which is why I deleted it; it didn't appear to have a discernible purpose. But now that you've illuminated the likely purpose, I have no problem making new subheadings that better achieve that goal. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing
The existing wording is such that an editor has used this guideline to justify close paraphrases that contain the exact creative words as the source material. Apparently, because there is no note under the close paraphrasing description that states this, so are there any objections to adding a note there that states:

Note: when close paraphrasing, even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks.? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this guideline, as currently written, represents the position of the academic world regarding close paraphrasing and plagiarism:


 * Per Wikilegal/Close Paraphrasing, Question: "Is close paraphrasing of a copyrighted work a copyright infringement?" Answer: "Yes. Among other rights, copyright law grants a copyright owner exclusive control over any unauthorized copying of the copyrighted work.[1] Paraphrasing may be construed as copying if it is 'substantially similar' to the copyrighted material. Such paraphrasing infringes on one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner."
 * From Washington University Law: "Examples of Plagiarism: Verbatim appropriation of another's particularly apt phrase with citation but without quotation marks."
 * From Bristol: "If you are not quoting other scholars directly, you must express their ideas in your own words: close paraphrasing, where only a few words of each sentence are changed from the original, has no place in academic writing."
 * From the University of North Carolina: "Paraphrasing means taking another person’s ideas and putting those ideas in your own words. Paraphrasing does NOT mean changing a word or two in someone else’s sentence, changing the sentence structure while maintaining the original words, or changing a few words to synonyms. If you are tempted to rearrange a sentence in any of these ways, you are writing too close to the original. That’s plagiarizing, not paraphrasing."
 * From Cabrillo: "You must put 'quotation marks' around any exact wording that you borrow, including phrases and sometimes even words."
 * From Harvard: "When you paraphrase, your task is to distill the source's ideas in your own words. It's not enough to change a few words here and there and leave the rest; instead, you must completely restate the ideas in the passage in your own words. If your own language is too close to the original, then you are plagiarizing, even if you do provide a citation."
 * From the University of Virginia: "In general, you will avoid plagiarism if you cite the sources you paraphrase and, if you use words or phrases that are distinctive to your original source, you use quotation marks as well. You should err on the side of attribution and quotation marks if you want to avoid plagiarism."
 * From Amherst College: "No matter your intention, close paraphrase may count as plagiarism, even when you cite the source."
 * From the University of Maine: "If your paraphrase mimics the original sentence structure of the source, it is considered a close paraphrase, a form of plagiarism."
 * From Princeton: even short phrases from the source into a new sentence still requires placing quotations around the borrowed words and citing the author. If even one phrase is good enough to borrow, it must be properly set off by quotation marks."
 * From the University of Toronto: "A close paraphrase may count as plagiarism, even if you cite the source."
 * From Earlham: "If the language of your paraphrase is very close to the original, then to drop the quotation marks and pretend the language is your own is still misleading and dishonest. It is still plagiarism. This is so even if you include a citation. A good paraphrase goes well beyond superficial tinkering with the original language."
 * From Donnelly College: "You will also have plagiarism issues if your paraphrasing is too close to the original work. If you have any doubts about your paraphrasing, use quotations."
 * From Loyola Marymount: "Unintentional Plagiarism: Paraphrasing too close to the original".
 * From Athabasca University: "One particular problem has been with what is called close paraphrasing or patchwork paraphrasing. In patchwork paraphrasing, students copy words and phrases from the original source and connect the words and phrases together with a few extra words of their own. Some students think that by inserting a few words of their own that they have avoided plagiarism, but they are merely disguising it. Disguised plagiarism in the form of patchwork paraphrasing remains plagiarism."
 * From Regis University: "Note that close paraphrase, where only trivial changes are made such as substituting similar words, is essentially the same as copying the author directly."
 * From Texas A&M University: "Be careful that your paraphrasing is not so close to the original that it would be better to simply use a direct quotation with quotation marks. (Leaving off quotation marks is a large error, even if you have made a parenthetical reference at the end of the sentence or passage; you could face a charge of plagiarism for such an omission.) Use quotation marks every time you use words or phrases from the original source."
 * From the University of Queensland: "Close paraphrases of a text are regarded as "plagiarism", just as are unacknowledged quotations. This is defined by the university as "cheating". To "paraphrase" means to restate someone else's statement(s) in your own words. A close paraphrase means minor changes have been made to an original text – for example, phrases have been re-ordered, or synonyms substituted."
 * From the University of Notre Dame: "Check your paraphrase against the original text to be sure you have not accidentally used the same phrases or words".
 * From the University of the West Indies: "Cosmetic paraphrasing is also plagiarism. This can occur when an acknowledgement is made but the words are so close to the original that what is deemed to have been paraphrased is, in fact, a modified quote."

Rationalobserver (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. I'm fine with adding the proposed language to the article, except I'd note that it's only a problem when closely paraphrasing from a nonfree source, since quotation marks are not required for free source material. And I recommend just slightly elaborating on "distinctive" to clarify that such words are basically being directly copied. So, maybe say:

Note: When closely paraphrasing a nonfree source, distinctive words or phrases that are copied verbatim from the source require quotation marks in addition to in-text attribution.

Thoughts? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point! That looks much better than my version. I fully agree with this language. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added that note. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since we were missing the fifth form of plagiarism, I added an example here. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This subject has had a lot of discussion in the past:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive_7 <-- probably the most pertinent


 * Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism/Archive_6
 * Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive 7
 * Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism/Archive 8
 * Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism/Archive 9


 * I do not approve of close paraphrasing of copyright material on Wikipedia because I think it causes more problems that it is worth. The point I have made to SlimVirgin, in the past is:


 * There are some problems with your edits:
 * copyleft sources are "non-free sources" but text copied from such a source if they have compatible licences there is no requirement for either in-text attribution or quotation marks.
 * well worn phrase such as "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" do not have to be placed in quotation marks.
 * -- PBS (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a good point about well-worn phrases, but I'm not sure when that would occur in encyclopedic writing, as editors wouldn't be including clichés as if in their own voice, would they? Maybe I'm missing something. Also, per Plagiarism: "Whether copyright-expired or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed." Rationalobserver (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * please do not use bullet points when replying to other's comments as it tends to mess up indentation (as it has here).
 * Sorry and thanks for the advice! Rationalobserver (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors may not including clichés as if in their own voice but they may include them when close paraphrasing.
 * That's a good point, in fact I just ran into an example of this yesterday. What do you suggest? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Copyleft is not in the public domain (eg Wikipedia pages), if text from a copyleft is copied into Wikpedia it has to have a compatible licence with Wikpedia, but how it is attributed depends on the licence and Wikipedia content polices (just as text copied from one Wikiepdia article to another does). -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Another good point; what do you suggest that we do? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would probably be best to break the section "Forms of plagiarism" into two. The first two points in boxes seem to be about plagiarism in general, whatever its source origin. The last two and your additional one seem to be specifically about copyrighted material. If such a distinction was made through sectioning then a lot of complications in the second half disappear. Large chunks of this guideline probably need to be reorganised in similar ways for example in-text attribution is not usually required for PD and copyleft sources (it is done thorough inline citations and attribution in the References section, see any of these articles. The argument against this as expressed by SlimVirgin is that the legitimate copying text into Wikipedia is a minority sport and the guideline should emphasise guidance to ordinary non-experienced users using copyright text.  -- PBS (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I share your concerns regarding this guideline, and it also occurred to me that it might benefit from a substantial re-working. Washington University Law School takes the position that there are two types of plagiarism: Appropriation of Another’s Words and Appropriation of Another’s Ideas or Concepts. Harvard says there are five distinct types: Verbatim plagiarism, Mosaic plagiarism, Inadequate paraphrase, Uncited paraphrase, and Uncited quotation. Maybe that's a good starting point. What do you think we should do first? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Seeing that you just made this edit at WP:Citing sources, and are making substantial changes to a longstanding guideline, I feel that you should be seeking wider Wikipedia input on this matter, such as a WP:RfC. The guideline has stated for sometime, and still currently does state (unless you go ahead and change that as well), that "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable." And yet you have added the following line to it and to WP:Citing sources: "When closely paraphrasing a non-free source, distinctive words or phrases that are copied verbatim from the source require quotation marks in addition to in-text attribution." Really? So, I have to put a word in quotation marks because the source used that same word and the source is non-free? I'm not buying it. How do we define what is "distinctive," and I more so mean a distinctive word, and what is automatically a WP:Copyvio because of that? I'm very tempted to revert all of your changes on this matter, and start widely publicizing this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All the changes that I've made are consistent with academia. If you aren't sure what distinctive means, I'll give you an example. John Smith was a prodigious worker who was also considered obtuse. The only distinctive words in that example are "prodigious" and "obtuse". Notre Dame says, "Check your paraphrase against the original text to be sure you have not accidentally used the same phrases or words". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Per the University of Virginia: "In general, you will avoid plagiarism if you cite the sources you paraphrase and, if you use words or phrases that are distinctive to your original source, you use quotation marks as well. You should err on the side of attribution and quotation marks if you want to avoid plagiarism." Do you dispute this, or do you think that my edits are not consistent with this ethos? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Wikilegal/Close Paraphrasing, Question: "Is close paraphrasing of a copyrighted work a copyright infringement?" Answer: "Yes. Among other rights, copyright law grants a copyright owner exclusive control over any unauthorized copying of the copyrighted work.[1] Paraphrasing may be construed as copying if it is 'substantially similar' to the copyrighted material. Such paraphrasing infringes on one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner." Rationalobserver (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Like I stated at my talk page, I appreciate your knowledge. However, I'm going to revert all of your changes regarding WP:Plagiarism, pending discussion (except for your talk page comments of course). Your edits will obviously still be in the edit history and can be salvaged at any time. Like I stated at the WP:Plagiarism talk page, you should take this matter to WP:RfC. Substantive changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially the big changes you are making regarding how Wikipedia treats plagiarism, should have WP:Consensus. I don't think that they should be molded by you alone with input from one other editor. Now that I've objected, I think that these pages should be reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO. So that is what I am going to do. That Wikipedia policies and guidelines should reflect WP:Consensus is stated at the top of these pages. We don't automatically base Wikipedia policies and guidelines on what academia states, and certainly not on what a lone Wikipedia editor believes is the consensus among academics (no matter if that Wikipedia editor is an expert or not an expert).


 * You have been making a lot of changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I'm generally not a believer in WP:Be bold when it comes to these pages. Reverting you on this matter is not personal. For example, at the talk page of Talk page guidelines, it's noted that I recently reverted additions because I think that significant changes to Wikipedia policies or guidelines should generally be discussed at the talk pages of those policies or guidelines first and that this "is indeed a good enough reason to revert, as is made clear by the notes at the top of these pages, and as has been made clear time and time again by my reverting in such cases, including the aforementioned WP:Reliable sources edit. It's been often enough that changes have been made to policies and guidelines only to be reverted months later because a significant number of editors missed that WP:Creep instance. WP:Silent consensus is too often a fail, which is why it's also only an essay. I uphold WP:Consensus until that is no longer the WP:Consensus." It took Arthur Rubin coming in to uphold my revert. So reverting on matters like these is simply how I am. If you don't start a WP:RfC on this WP:Plagiarism matter and/or invite the WP:Village pump to weigh in on it, then I will. But I advise you to do so. Simply trying to debate me on the matter will not cut it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for a drawn-out process, but feel free of course to retain the flawed guidelines and force those who understand this issue to jump though hoops and expend energy they don't have. I can safely say that the version you will be reverting is misleading and inaccurate. But I guess if the Wikipedia consensus was such that the Earth was deemed to be flat, anyone who tried to correct that obvious mistake might face the same opposition. The word pedantic comes to mind, but that's fine, as you are supported by consensus. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This matter has been taken to Village pump (policy)/Archive 116. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC
I would like to add the following language as a note under Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution in Plagiarism.

"* Note: When closely paraphrasing a nonfree source, any directly appropriated words or phrases that are distinctive to the source material require quotation marks in addition to in-text attribution."

Support adding the proposed language

 * 1) I fail to see why calling a piece of writing close paraphrasing should exempt that material from the standard advice offered for examples of No quotation marks, in-text attribution, which is: "even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks". As far as I can tell, the working definitions of these two examples are nearly identical. Per Copyright violations: "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure; this is known as close paraphrasing (which can also raise problems of plagiarism)." Rationalobserver (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support. Excellent proposal.  It's hard to comprehend a good reason to object to this.  Unless one supports plagiarism, of course. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I've seen some long sections quoted in citations before, and part of the site purpose is to avoid using hosting free content. I'd go into more detail and describe a limit or else we have none.  Although the link to close paraphrasing is part of the text, I don't think discussion about that is relevant here.  I don't think limits are unclear about close paraphrasing.  ~ R.T.G 01:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose adding the proposed language

 * 1) Oppose.  I reject the idea that Wikipedia can use academic models. All the academic websites quoted here deal with student papers they are required to submit in registered university courses for academic credit in which students are required to produce originality. The rules deal with cheating by taking  academic credit for someone else's originality.  We have an OPPOSITE system at Wikipedia--we strongly discourage originality, and we do not give academic credit for which a student can cheat. Rjensen (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose.  We absolutely should provide attribution to every available piece of source material we can, however the use of quotation marks should be restricted to verbatim quotations.  Though officially discouraged, Wikipedia WILL be cited widely, and we should avoid any chance of spoiling legitimate quotes - which will be propagated from us via Chinese whispers. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Guideline creep. Don't fix what ain't broken, as they say... (Or should that be Don't "fix" what ain't "broken"???) Carrite (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose the creep of the (from the point of view of my European culture) absolutely weird American plagiarism paranoia into Wikipedia. We have all we need about close paraphrasing and plagiarism in our current policies. -- cyclopia speak!  21:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose; this is already being extensively discussed at the WP:Village pump, with a WP:RfC going on there as well, and multiple editors have disagreed with Rationalobserver's proposals for valid reasons. I told him the following there, "In short, I stated that what you are trying to enforce -- consistently defining what is a distinctive word and stating that we have to put that perceived distinctive word in quotation marks because it's from a copyrighted source -- is difficult to enforce. And others above, especially Rjensen, are in agreement with that. In some cases, will putting that perceived distinctive word in quotation marks be justified? Perhaps. But because what is a distinctive word can be prone to debate, far more so than phrases that are clearly distinct from whatever sources, and because Wikipedia allows limited WP:Close paraphrasing (whether with WP:Intext-attribution or otherwise), I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of cases involving a 'distinctive word' will not require quotation marks unless it's a matter where substantial WP:Close paraphrasing has ensued. But in a case where substantial WP:Close paraphrasing has ensued, the article needs cleanup in that regard anyway." Many people at Wikipedia consider Moonriddengirl the foremost expert on copyright and plagiarism issues on Wikipedia, and she has disagreed with Rationalobserver as well. Having two WP:RfCs going on regarding this matter is not productive, in my opinion, and is rather disruptive, especially since Rationalobserver does not seem to be truly considering anyone's viewpoint but his own; this is also why Elvey recently told him to drop the stick. Flyer22 (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Common sense and the current guidelines are enough to determine plagiarism vs close paraphrasing. Let's for the moment assume that the guideline is rooted in academic standards, which I do not completely agree with. As mentioned already, the standards of academia do not directly transfer to here. There is no specific author of an article on WP, WP is not a formal academic source or a reliable source, nor is anyone making money or reputation off what they write on WP. WP is a hobby for most people. Don't fix what is not broken. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) This is only a weak oppose, because I agree with the sentiment but not with the change in wording. I agree with other editors who have said that this is common sense and instruction creep. Editorial judgment comes into play when deciding whether or not certain wording is distinctive. I also do not see why it matters, in terms of quotation marks, whether the source is free or non-free. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. (For transparency, my comment was solicited by User:Rationalobserver.) I don't at all object to using quotation marks around distinctive phrases from non-free sources; in fact, I'm for it. But that's already required, explicitly, in this guideline: "Regardless of plagiarism concerns, works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license must comply with the copyright policy and the non-free content guideline. This means they cannot be extensively copied into Wikipedia articles. Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation". The guideline also defers concerns with non-free content elsewhere: "If you find duplicated text or media, consider first whether the primary problem is plagiarism or copyright infringement. If the source is not in the public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia, or if you suspect that it is not, you should address it under the copyright policies." So, this addition isn't necessary for copyright reasons, and when it comes to plagiarism, the copyright status of the source isn't determinative. Whether it's copyrighted or not copyrighted, plagiarism is plagiarism (however it is defined). The guideline already says "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." It's very visible in the document, and it's true regardless of whether the source is copyrighted or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Agree with what Moonridengirl said.  Rationalobserver, drop the stick.  This is not academia.  Plagiarism per se is not a copyright violation. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 05:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Appropriating individual words or phrases is unavoidable if one does not want to engage in original research or write awkward prose. Putting them all between quotation marks would look silly.  Sandstein   16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Individual words are not copyrightable. Whether a given passage so closely follows the source it's plagiarism will always be a matter of judgement, and changing the policy page will not bring more clarity to those decisions. NE Ent 01:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * According to the Universtiy of Idaho: "Cite, Reference or Document your sources: Whenever you quote verbatim two or more words in a row, or even a single word or label that's distinctive ... Words you take verbatim from another person need to be put in quotation marks, even if you take only two or three words; it's not enough simply to cite."
 * According to Wabash College: "All words that come directly from a source must be indicated by quotation marks (or, in the case of a long block quote, other clear formatting). This includes short phrases or even single words, not just whole sentences."
 * According to Bemidji State: "you should always directly quote any single words or phrases that are distinctive to your source."
 * According to Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences: "You have not taken any words from any other piece of writing-published, unpublished, or online-without putting quotation marks around such words and indicating their source. This pledge pertains to phrases as well as whole sentences, and even to significant single words, such as those that express opinion or judgment."
 * According to Portland State University: "Quotation marks are required for even a single word, however, if it is especially colorful or represents the original writer's judgment."
 * According to Palgrave: "Even a single word, if it is distinctive to your author's argument. You must use quotation marks and cite the source."
 * According to the University of Melbourne: "Use quotation marks for even a single word if the original author used it in a special or central way."
 * According to Bates College: "Whenever you use exact words from a source, you must enclose them in quotation marks (or use a block if the quotation is lengthy) and provide a full citation. Even a single word or brief phrase, if it's distinctive, should go in quotation marks."
 * According to the University of North Carolina: "Partial Quotation: In some cases, you may want to use only part of a sentence you found in a source—perhaps just a phrase or even a single word. As with a full quotation, you must place the exact words you borrow within quotation marks."

I.e., this isn't only about strange or unusual words, but rather ordinary words that carry a bulk of the sentence's creativity; e.g., "any single words or phrases that are distinctive to your source", "even to significant single words, such as those that express opinion or judgment", "especially colorful or represents the original writer's judgment", "if it is distinctive to your author's argument", or "if the original author used it in a special or central way". I would also like to point out that this note:

""even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks""

is currently included under No quotation marks, in-text attribution. Apparently, the way the guideline is structured, this advice applies only to examples of No quotation marks, in-text attribution and not Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution, but I am not aware of any compelling argument that those labels justify radically different standards, nor am I aware of any third party sources that suggest one can take verbatim words and phrases from nonfree material without putting them in quotes, except for examples of shared language and common knowledge. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , can you offer any explanation of why this: "even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks" is appropriate for the example: No quotation marks, in-text attribution, but not for close paraphrasing? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , can you offer any explanation of why this: "even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks" is appropriate for the example: No quotation marks, in-text attribution, but not for close paraphrasing? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reading this, I don't like the example much. The source says Cottage Cheese for Beginners is the most boring book I've ever read.  -- the article reads John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was the most boring book he had ever read.  I view this as tolerable in the sense that I don't think we should take administrative action against users who write well within ordinary Fair Use boundaries, especially in a case as trivial as this - plagiarism is, as said by others above, an academic issue not directly relevant to Wikipedia editors - but it is not ideal.  The reason isn't in really in the phylum of copyright and attribution at all, but rather is due to issues of NPOV and original research: I don't want "Wikipedia's voice" to call someone's hard work "the most boring book".  Rather, I would like to see John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was "the most boring book" he had ever read. as the better form, to keep up a firm wall between our text and his.  Though admittedly... looking over it all again, it's a pretty near thing, and a pretty minor issue, either way. Wnt (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm saying. The example implies that one can appropriate the creative words from a source without having to put them in quotation marks, which is ridiculous. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's possible to misinterpret your suggestion as meaning to quote "the most boring book he had ever read", which of course is right out; I think one person above might have done so. But I wouldn't call the opposing position "ridiculous" because people might say that quoting "the most boring book" breaks up the flow of text or highlights the phrase too much, and, well, there's a point to that. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not up on Wikispeak, and I am really confused by the opposition. FTR, I would enclose only "most boring book", as that's the part that conveys the original author's judgment. As this guideline is currently written, it implies that editors can appropriate many words from a source as long as they are attributed in-text: "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought", but I have never before heard someone argue that one can appropriate any of the author's original words, except those that are shared language or common knowledge, without placing them in quotation marks. The true definition of paraphrasing focuses on the onus to use your own words, so that any words that you borrow must be indicated with quotation marks, as a writer is claiming as their own any distinctive words taken from the source that are not in quotes. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , can you offer any explanation of why this: "even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks" is appropriate for the example: No quotation marks, in-text attribution, but not for close paraphrasing? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I lost track of what the difference is here; I'm too confused to answer. Wnt (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's kind of my point about this guideline. Why would you be exempt as long as you say it's a close paraphrase? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Copyright violations: "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure; this is known as close paraphrasing (which can also raise problems of plagiarism)." Rationalobserver (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC closure
See his contributions for diffs. -- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 18:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I closed the RFC above; Rationalobserver reverted.
 * 2) I warned him; Rationalobserver reverted.
 * 3) I then warned him for a personal attack that followed; Rationalobserver reverted.


 * Per: Requests for comment: "There are several ways that RfCs end: the question may be withdrawn by the poster, it may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation, the RfC participants can agree to end it, or it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor." You are obviously involved, so you shouldn't have closed it in the first place. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to have avoided including in your quote the immediately following, and relevant clause at Requests for comment: "However, if the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." I believed the consensus was obvious to the participants.  It seems it wasn't obvious to you. If I misjudged ability to judge consensus, I'm sorry.  When you restored the RfC, you also removed my comment on the RfC, which, importantly, explained the problems and reasons for closure.-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 23:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments by Fyer22
Note: I'm not seeing what Rationalobserver is seeing with the change in the guideline. It still states that the "in-text attribution, no quotation marks, text closely paraphrased, inline citation" approach is fine. There is no emphasis on the type of "distinctive word" rationale he was pushing. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * At her talk page, Moonriddengirl explained to me that "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks" applies to all examples, and the note need not be repeated as I proposed. I.e., I was correct all along. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Going by what you proposed for WP:Plagiarism, and what has been stated above and at the WP:Village pump, you were nowhere close to being right all along. The guideline has stated for some time that "distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks," which was pointed out to you by me and others linking you to WP:Plagiarism. You also pointed it out during a lot of debating on your "distinctive word" angle. Your mission was to define what distinctive words are and to state that those words require quotation marks. You were incorrect, and still are; the guideline still does not try to define what distinctive words are, at least not in the way that you attempted to do, and it still does not state that quotation marks are necessary for "distinctive words." So let's not pretend that your proposals were the same as what SlimVirgin and Moonriddengirl altered the guideline to be. And as for your snarky comment in the discussion at Moonriddengirl's talk page that got archived before I could reply, yes, smart move by Moonriddengirl, since what was embarrassing about our interactions was you acting all superior to everyone, obsessing over this "distinctive word" matter for days, WP:Forum shopping and the like, WP:Templating a regular in a silly need to intimidate, and acting as though you can dictate what goes on my user talk page.


 * And to others, take note that I did not add the Flyer22 heading. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It applies to all examples? If true, then perhaps it should be clarified that this rule does not apply to duplicating material from free sources. The guideline explicitly states "If a Wikipedia article is constructed through summarizing reliable sources, but there is a paragraph or a few sentences copied from compatibly licensed or public-domain text which is not placed within quotations, then putting an attribution template in a footnote at the end of the sentences or paragraph is sufficient." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I only meant that it applies to all close paraphrases of nonfree material. The example that was there under close paraphrasing before I started this discussion implied that verbatim words could be used from a nonfree source. The example that's there now under "In-text attribution, no quotation marks, text closely paraphrased, inline citation" constitutes a fair paraphrase that does not appropriate any distinctive language from the source material; thus the ambiguity is resolved to my satisfaction. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert
, my thinking is that "make it easy to plagiarize inadvertently" is a poor construction that implies that this is an honest mistake that is bound to happen. On the other hand, "make it challenging for editors to avoid inadvertent plagiarism" seems more to the point, with the proper connotation that it is a challenge to do it correctly, versus it's easy to plagiarize. I also think that "susceptible" is a better term for this than "vulnerable", which carries a victim-like connotation. This is a very minor point, so I won't belabor it, but I'm not sure your revert restored a preferable version. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You would not have made the changes unless you thought then am improvement. I would not have reverted if I did not think the other wording more appropriate, so I guess we will have to wait to see what others think. -- PBS (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)