Talk:Plagiarism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

incorrect definition

Article: "Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation..."

Authorization is irrelevant. What defines plagiarism is the lack of accurate and proper attribution, with or without authorization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.95.4 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Can some definitions of plagiarism be added from respected academic sources? Obviously referencing is vital with a subject like this.

There ia a certain level of domain specific relevance to definitions. How would an incredible simple and unambigious definition, like 'plagiarism is using the ideas of another without acknowledgement' do as a starting point?

From such a clear starting point, you can define written plagiarism 'using the words or ideas of another without acknowledgement', student plagiarism 'using the ideas of another without acknowledgement and for acadamic advantage' etc.

74.220.207.95 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition can definitely be improved. Part of the reason why it's not as good as it could be is that someone plagiarized the definition that was in use in this article so it had to be hastily replaced. --ElKevbo 21:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Unauthorized" is misleading at best. I will remove it as per discussion above 62.47.0.217 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dershowtitz

The cite should be to a book by Finkelstein, "Beyond Chutzpah". Not a web page. Finkelstein charges Dershowitz with source mining. Dershowitz responds that he looked up the originals himself. Finkelstein's book says that Dershowitz replicated citation errors from Peters, and that if he had looke dup the originals himself, it is highly unlikely that he woud have made exactly the same transcription errors. Dershowitz has not addressed this argument. This debate can be easily documented. What is the rationale for deleting it from Wikipedia?Verklempt (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I was the most recent person to remove this from the article. I did so because it was sourced to one individual's blog. We need much stronger evidence to accuse a living person of plagiarism. Further, we should have more evidence than a single book (if that's the "real" source of the accusations) before documenting this accusation as it really does seem to give it undue weight. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This article's purpose is not to accuse anyone of plagiarism, nor to sit in judgment on whether such accusations are proved or not. We can, however, catalog accusations against prominent individuals, which is what the Dershowitz example does. It is a proven fact that the accusation has been made. There are numerous journalistic confirmations of the accusation. What is the rationale for deleting this observation of an undefended accusation, beyond complaints about the blog sourcing? Better cites are easily found.Verklempt (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUEWEIGHT: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Groupthink (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We're all familiar with the policy. If you think a position is not presented, then add it in. Don't delete the other position -- that's not constructive.Verklempt (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, what's not constructive is violating policy. Groupthink (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's some more policy language with which you should be familiar: "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." That's from WP:BLP, you know, the "keep Wikipedia from being sued for libel" policy?

Now as much as I'd love to remove the bias-causing material that you are insisting on preserving, I don't want to edit war or violate 3RR. However, I will feel obligated to post this matter to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if this problem hasn't been fixed by tomorrow. Groupthink (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the example is well-sourced, and given that the Finkelstein/Dershowtiz controversy is a central part of the subject's notability, I don't see any policy violation. You still have yet to offer any sources from a competing perspective. If you think the example is one-sided, then it's up to you to make a case based on evidence. Why don't you try?Verklempt (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My issue is primarily with the sourcing and I urge you to review our policy regarding living persons. If there are *much* better sources, please provide them (I'm guessing you can just grab some from the article mentioned below).

By the way, we should most certainly not allow this article to become a repository for poorly-sourced or unfounded accusations of plagiarism, particularly against living persons. That's unethical. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with those principles. However, this particular accusation can be sourced per WP:RS, and Dershowitz has failed to respond to the core of the accusation, thus indicating that it has some merit.Verklempt (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a topic Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair. This topic should be focusing on the types of plagiarism rather than being a catalog of instances. (Several of the entries in this topic are non-notable already). Tedickey (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

From a glance at the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair, I get the impression that there is controversy over whether there was plagiarism. Therefore, that is not a good example to use in this article; mentioning it here gives it undue weight and would seem to imply taking a stand on the controversy. Per WP:BLP, please don't re-add similar material until there is a consensus on this talk page that it's appropriate for this article and that sufficient reliable sources have been provided. Also, there are too many examples listed already. The list should be pruned. This is not supposed to be a comprehensive list of all cases of plagiarism, but an article about plagiarism. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The section heading is titled "purported or actual plagiarism." The Dershowitz example is clearly "purported". It is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to determine whether or not plagiary has been committed. Because the Dershowitz example is one of the most prominent in the US in recent years, it belongs in any list. Whether or not there needs to be a lsit at all is a separate debate.Verklempt (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Can you provide sources to support your statement that it's one of the most prominent in the US? Is it one of the most prominent in the world? I just did a Google News search for "plagiarism", looked at the list of the first 50 hits (approx.) and didn't see anything about Dershowitz or Finkelstein. That doesn't necessarily prove anything since Google News tends to give recent results, but if the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair were extremely prominent, I would think a mention of it would likely have come up. (It could have been mentioned within the stories on other cases; I didn't click on every link.) --Coppertwig (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are conflating two separate issues here. One is whether or note there should be a list of notable examples, and if so, how should we define notability. The second issue is whether this specific example is a BLP violation. Given that the example is impeccably sourced, and given that no editor has yet to offer any countervailing citations, I don't see a BLP problem.Verklempt (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How in the world does "no editor has yet to offer any countervailing citations" mean that this isn't a BLP problem?

And I, too, would appreciate any evidence you can offer supporting your assertion that this "is one of the most prominent in the US in recent years?" --ElKevbo (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) The example is impeccably sourced. The burden of proof is on the deleters to demonstrate that the passage is problematic, by means of reason and evidence. Simply waving your hands and crying "BLP!" does not constitute an argument. (2) Re the notability of this particular example, I would ask you to define your standard of proof first, before I start looking for evidence. Second, I would want to know why you are asking me to justify this example, but not any of the others on the list.Verklempt (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly take issue with the sources except to (once again) note that our standard for controversial issues involving living persons is very high. But in Wikipedia the burden of proof is always with those who advocate including something, not on those who advocate for its removal. With respect to your second question, I think you're dodging the issue. We've asked for any evidence supporting your assertion.

Finally, *I* am not asking about the other examples in this article as you don't appear to be placing yourself in a position to defend them and it wouldn't be fair for me to assume that you are doing so. For the record, a quick glance shows that some of the existing examples aren't very good and I am sure that some of them are shoddy and their inclusion is based on dislike for the figure(s) involved (i.e. they're politically motivated). But, again, this isn't the topic of discussion - this specific example is. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) I've already met the burden of proof for inclusion per WP:RS. There are numerous additional cites that could be made, but we already have enough. (2) Without a general standard for inclusion in the list, it is pointless to debate the notability of any single example.Verklempt (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You've once again completely dodged the (second) question. You specifically stated that this "is one of the most prominent in the US in recent years" and we've asked for any evidence you have supporting that assertion. Care to answer that question or will you continue ignoring it? "I don't have any evidence" is an acceptable answer - I promise we won't hate you. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider my response more carefully. You are asking me to go pull cites to validate this example's inclusion in a list that you've already proposed to kill. You refuse to establish a standard of proof. It's a waste of my time to answer your question at this stage in the discussion, given that the list's survival is up in the air. Let's settle the issues surrounding the list first, and then we can go through and discuss each individual example. In the meantime, you may want to peruse the existing Wikipedia article on the Dershowitz-Finkelstein controversy, which has plenty of cites for you to read through.Verklempt (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've not asked you to validate anything except for your own statement. You're either unwilling or unable to do so and I'm quite perturbed that you've wasted my time. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're trolling. I don't play those games.Verklempt (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal and refactoring of "examples"

I propose removing all examples from this article that are not covered in detail by a Wikipedia article, either a free-standing one or as a significant section in a larger article. I propose this as a means to establish some criteria for inclusion as an example in this article since there appears to be no firm criteria.

I would also be happy with removing all of the examples and simply listing the Wikipedia articles in the "See also" section. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would go further. If we really want to have a list of notable examples of plagiarism, it should be in List of examples of plagiarism or List of purported instances of plagiarism or List of plagiarism controversies or something, not in the article on plagiarism. There have been way too many to cover them here in anything but an arbitrary fashion. I'd further suggest each controversy should probably go on that list if and only if it's worthy either of its own article or of a section of its own in the article on the alleged plagiarist. Kalkin (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I will do this, moving the entire list of examples to a new article, unless anyone objects within the next couple of days. I like the title "List of plagiarism controversies" best, as it makes it clear which examples of plagiarism are sufficiently notable to go on the list - those that caused public controversies - and which are not - anything that may be mentioned in a reliable source but that escaped significant public comment. Kalkin (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can try making a new topic which deals with public controversies, but (given that most of the lists on Wikipedia seem to be driven by POV-editors), it would take continual pruning to keep it in bounds. Tedickey (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we already have a list, only it's on this article, where it's out of place, and it doesn't have any defined standards for inclusion. I can't promise to police the new list, but at the least I think it would be an improvement. Kalkin (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire list, as nobody seemed to show any enthusiasm at all for having it in the first place. I read Kalkin's suggestion to split it off to a separate article as an attempt to compromise with those who want to keep the examples, but they are nonexisting, as far as I can see. If Kalkin actually wants to keep the list under at different name, feel free to rescue it out of the article history. –Henning Makholm 03:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't want the work put into the list to be lost, and I think it might be useful to have a list of examples to which this article can link. I'll go ahead and create the list, basically just by copying the old section. If you are actively opposed to the idea, though, I don't feel strongly about it - if you put the article I'm about to create up for deletion, I won't necessarily contest it. Kalkin (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

How about just creating a category and placing each of the existing articles and this one into that new category? --ElKevbo (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that better. But Category:Plagiarism itself is not exactly overburdened. I'd say we could just add articles to that and then split it later if it becomes a problem finding articles about plagiarism in general among the individual cases.

I'm not so much "actively opposed" to a separate list as concerned that the list may develop WP:BLP problems unless someone's willing to spend time policing some strict inclusion and verifiability criteria there. –Henning Makholm 23:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I can't promise to police the list. But by the same token I don't know if or when I'll have time to go through it and convert it to a category. Kalkin (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding the articles to a category should be pretty quick and painless and I would be happy to help. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Let's do this. We can get rid of one section of the list at a time, I suppose. Kalkin (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

I find the opening of this article (on Plagiarism) quite well written. That being said, I recommend some discussion of the notorious text of which I give above one of its numerous titles. This antisemitic and anti-Masonic text first entered history as an alleged stolen document allegedly recording the plotting of Jews and Freemasons to take over the world. It was presented as having come into being in the last decade of the 19th centuary. However, in 1921, it was discovered that substantial portions of it were plagiarized from a work by Maurice Joly published in 1864, in the French language, under the title, Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu). An examination of the Joly text revealed that it was a satire critical of Napoleon III.--Ludvikus (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism and Common Knowledge

I posted a request here asking if any more qualified persons to expand on common knowledge as it relates to plagiarism in academia. No activity on that page so I thought maybe here might be a good place to re-post the request. -- Low Sea (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

command, shift, 4

I'm curious. Is it considered plagiarism if one goes on the internet, and takes pictures of pictures? People can take pictures by holding down command (or apple), along with shift, and 4. Some can even take pictures from videos, by pausing them, and then taking the pictures. I was curious, because these actions make it sound like they are original pictures, of the one who took them. Does anyone know if these acts are considered as plagiarism or not? 71.181.55.104 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC) fantasyleader

Limbo of the Lost

I've taken the liberty of adding the computer game Limbo of the Lost to the "See Also" list. It's the very definition of Plagiarism - virtually the entire game save for a few minor components is taken from other games. --ToyoWolf (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also added it to the List of plagiarism controversies, for the reasons stated above. However, it uses the first paragraph from the game's article and may need some re-working. --ToyoWolf (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the game article is in the list, I don't see any value in having a separate entry in the see also section. The other entries in the list are subjects related to plagiarism, rather than examples of it. For that purpose, the list is fine. Kevin (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)