User:ASCIIn2Bme/Verifiability and plagiarism are the hammer and anvil of astute wikilawyers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Let's assume that in good faith you summarize a non-copy-left source as to comply with Wikipedia policies on verifiablity and copyright.

Mr. Troll challenges what you wrote is an inaccurate summary. Mr. Troll is astute enough to offer no counter-formulations of his own, because that would open him to criticism. Instead, his edits to the article consist of inserting [citation needed] tags, sometimes many of them to overwhelm you, and stripping off the references, claiming they fail verification. When he does bother to read the source you cited, he is careful to find some phrase that is not found ad litteram in it, and base his challenge on that issue.

If you're gullible enough, you'll comply with his repeated demands for accuracy by changing the text closer and closer to the source. What you don't know is that he is baiting you to change the text to the point where it may arguably be a copyright violation owing to close paraphrasing. After you do that, the "switch" part of bait and switch kicks in. Now Mr. Troll no longer complains that what you wrote is not verifiable, but rather that it is a copyright violation or plagiarism. Mr. Troll is not very careful with terminology, because he is not really concerned with Wikipedia's integrity. If he gets you to waste your time lecturing him on the distinction, he just scores more points.

If you were smart enough, you answered the initial challenge by replacing the passage that Mr. Troll complained about with a direct quotation accompanied by in-line attribution. Of course, the article may read stupid when you do that or even contravene YESPOV, which recommends against in-text attribution in for non-controversial statements. That achievement alone may provide some satisfaction to Mr. Troll.

If you happened to discuss or object before making the change(s), the mere fact that you complied with his demand(s), is now taken as proof by Mr. Troll that he was right. He may go on to extract an extra pound of flesh from you by repeatedly reminding you that you "violated" the verifiability policy, and that he is the guardian of the wiki, without which all hell would break loose. Your feeble initial protest is just a proof that you are disruptive and have a battleground mentality.

Give that you don't own articles, if you care about article quality, you'll probably waste even more of your time by following the labyrinth of dispute resolution. With the ever decreasing population of Wikipedia editors, the chances that anyone will give a fuck about your dispute with Mr. Troll become increasingly negligible. Your appeals to various WikiProjects go unanswered, and you can see from their talk pages that everyone posts a problem or dispute there, but nobody ever answers it. You pack your toys and leave Wikipedia editing to those like Mr. Troll. Or maybe you stick around, and after enough pyrrhic victories you become an astute wikilawyer like him.