Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Current (main page) (T:DYK)
Queue (T:DYK/Q)
Nominations (T:TDYK)
Discussion (WT:DYK)
Rules (WP:DYK)
Supplementary rules (WP:DYKSG)
Reviewing guide (WP:DYKR)
Archive of DYKs (WP:DYKA)
Stats (WP:DYKSTATS)

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. However, proposals for changing how Did You Know works are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

2011 DYK reform proposals

Numerous threads moved to the Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals subpage:

• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Good articles redux
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal - minimum character requirement increase from 1500 to 2500
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Some thoughts from a semi-regular
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal to replace DYK with new Good article DYKs and demote the current system to a sub page
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Multiple RFCs confusing, simply remove DYK from the mainpage
• Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Brainstorming related to RFC

N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.

Unverified hook?

Not sure what happened here: [1] Also, text contains verbatim text from a source without quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording of the hook tweaked based on your suggestion at WP:ERRORS. Is there verbatim text apart from the block quote? (lack of sleep catching up...) Shubinator (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have time to check further ... I'm kind of all over the place trying to catch up on multiple today. That one was close enough that if someone has time to check, it would be good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I combed through and found one more sentence. Both plagiarized sentences have been removed. Shubinator (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you let the nominator and reviewer know? (Educate, educate .... :) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope that I'm not counted as the reviewer. I didn't review it, I only mentioned the unformatted references. SL93 (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism Dispatch

Another copyvio removed from the mainpage today: Template:Did you know nominations/Musa Muradov

It would help if folks would understand that copying the entire structure of a source is copyvio. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches:

Adapting source text, whether by paraphrasing or summarizing, is a valuable skill, and contributors to Wikipedia need to be alert to the potential for inadvertent plagiarism. Many editors believe that by changing a few words here or there—or even by changing a great number of the words found in the original source—they have avoided plagiarism. This is not necessarily the case. Nor does the mere rearrangement of clauses, sentences, or paragraphs avoid the problem.

In other words, just because the duplication detector shows only a few words similar, we're not out of the woods.

In terms of both plagiarism and copyright, the author of a text not only "owns" the precise, creative language he or she uses, but less tangible creative features of presentation, which may incorporate the structure of the piece and the choice of facts.

and

In evaluating copyright concerns, the United States courts adopt a "substantial similarity" test that compares the pattern and sequence of two works, finding such similarity where "the ordinary observer [reading two works], unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same."[17] Even if all of the language is revised, a court may find copyright infringement under the doctrine of "comprehensive non-literal similarity" if "the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar".[18] Likewise, plagiarism may exist if readers comparing the two works would come away with a sense that one is copied from or too heavily based on another.

Every DYK I have examined from this nominator has the same problem: if you read the source, and then read the article, you are reading someone else's work, with a few words juggled. See examples at Template:Did you know nominations/Nosa Igiebor (journalist) and Template:Did you know nominations/Aboubakr Jamaï.

It's hard not to despair when no amount of scrutiny has brought any change to bear on DYK, in spite of at least three years of attempts to stem the tide here. Folks, you have a training ground here for new editors, and they continue to be rewarded for not learning how to paraphrase correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to uphold these standards and stay sane, when many of the contributors are crybabies. A few months back I had to put up with a bunch of lame drama, including an ANI thread, when I rejected a copied-the-structure-of-the-source case (Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner) that was even more obvious than this one. In the end it looks like they just ignored me and passed the plagiarized article anyway. No wonder I don't bother with reviewing anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I know-- I've asked Moonriddengirl to come over here and put in a word. Perhaps she will shed some light. Maybe I'm wrong :) But when you read a source, and you can tell the structure is the same, but then the authors claim, well it's chronological order, what are you to do? It's as plain as day that the structure is identical, with a few words changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I did the comparison suggested by SandyGeorgia and I find no copyvio there. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask someone to post a list of articles that have been removed from Wikipedia at the request of the source author for "close paraphrasing" or "structure" copyright infringement? This is a gray, subjective area, and we may be discouraging good faith editors who are sensitive about being called thieves when they are not thieves. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Having gotten seriously rattled recently when a DYK reviewer declared an article of mine to be a verbatim copy of the source (in fact, it was identical to itself -- a plagiarism-checking software package found it to be identical to a page of the same title on a Wikipedia mirror site), I endorse Kenatipo's plea for gentleness in interacting with article creators on this issue. We all are capable of mistakes of judgment. --Orlady (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The list can be found at Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. However, most were not removed by the source author. Froggerlaura (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that page, Froggerlaura. I don't know why anyone would sue Wikipedia anyway (the Foundation doesn't have any money, does it?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just off the top of your head, did any of the "removed" articles get fixed? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What's funny is that I actually re-read the close paraphrasing policies two weeks back to try to stay on the right side of this. I have to admit I missed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, though.

I'll be happy to have my work reviewed by others, and if it's found to be too close to original sources, I'll be glad to get some guidance on how to avoid it in the future. Sandy has already made fun of my response above, but I do find it legitimately difficult in the articles I'm writing on--which often involve a series of crimes or court cases in which journalists are involved--to avoid chronological order. Aboubakr Jamai is a good example; wherever I could find information about his litigation in another source, I added it in, but CPJ had written about several of these incidents, in chronological order, and so I used them as a source multiple times. I did separate direct censorship incidents and litigation into separate sections, sourced from multiple places, but found it difficult to have them make sense without appearing in roughly chronological order. If the resulting article is still too close to the CPJ source, I'm not sure how to get there without deleting the facts themselves from the Wiki.

Given my past run-ins with SandyGeorgia, however, I hope nobody minds if I ask for a second opinion. I'll see if there's a copyvio report board or someone similar who can give this a once-over. I don't know what else to say except that I am a good faith contributor doing his best. If I have been unintentionally violating Wikipedia policy here, my apologies in advance. Khazar (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware we had had "past run-ins" (I interact with boatloads of editors, so don't remember all of them), but knowing that raises a concern-- were our past encounters related to paraphrasing? Anyway, Moonriddengirl has promised to pop over here later to help educate us, but she's busy for the rest of the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Sandy. I don't think Khazar has any malicious intent and from his previous DYK that were linked previously, the closely paraphrased passages are like the one discussed below (BLP with few sources to draw from). Please weigh in on the discussion below where the problem (which was identified by you) is being addressed. Froggerlaura (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Specific example

This is a specific example of the closely paraphrased article source structure in the Musa Muradov article.

Wikipedia: Background section

“Muradov graduated from Moscow State University's journalism department in 1982. He then returned to his home town of Grozny, Chechnya, where he began work for Groznensky Rabochy, a weekly newspaper established in 1917, then controlled by the Communist Party. After the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, Muradov became the paper's editor-in-chief. However, Dzhokar Dudayev, president of Czechnya's new, unrecognized secessionist government, soon attempted to make the paper an official publication of his party, and Muradov and most of his staff quit. For the next two years, he worked teaching journalism at a local university as well as reporting for a small regional publication. In 1994, he fled the growing violence of the First Chechen War with his family, moving to Moscow.”

Source: “Awards 2003 – Muradov,” CPJ (2003).

“In 1982, after graduating from Moscow State University's journalism department, Muradov returned to Grozny and began reporting for Groznensky Rabochy, which, like all Soviet publications at that time, was controlled by the Communist Party. Following the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Groznensky Rabochy became an independent publication, and Muradov became its editor-in-chief. Two years later, as secessionist movements in the region gained momentum, Chechnya's separatist leader Dzhokar Dudayev attempted to convert Groznensky Rabochy into his administration's official publication. Muradov and most of his staff refused to compromise the paper's newfound freedom and walked away. Groznensky Rabochy was consequently shuttered, and Muradov took a job as a correspondent for a regional publication while teaching journalism at a local university. In 1994, with the situation becoming increasingly violent in Chechnya, Muradov and his family fled to Moscow.”

The question is does CPJ "own" facts pertaining to Muradov's life. Is there any other way to convey the same information in a coherent manner (probably chronological) that would not be too close to the source but still accurately reflect (no OR or opinion) what happened in the man's life? Froggerlaura (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is a full biography, it needs to be in chronological order if it is the only way to convey the information properly especially if it goes from year to year. It's not like, for example, an editor should start writing about someone in his 60s, then his 30s, then his 20s, then back to his 60s, and then his early life. What I mean is that not following the same structure at all is impossible. SL93 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Without taking a stand on whether I'm doing right or wrong in my editing, that's a good example of the sort of paragraph that leads to tough decisions for me. I was very frustrated not to find his earlier history in other sources in a significant way. I do my best to rewrite the source information, but it's difficult given chronological, factual events from a single source; the choice then appears to come down to whether to include it in a form that's rewritten to the best of my abilities or to omit some information. It's entirely possible I'm erring on the wrong side of this choice, however, and I'll be glad to hear the feedback of others on this. Khazar (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The "example" here covers most of the problematic passage, which deals with the early part of his life and career. As others have noted, it is difficult to present a biography without being chronological. A particular challenge in this instance is that there seems to be only one source that documents this part of the subject's biography, and there are gaps in this part of his life story. Khazar has endeavored to reduce the resemblance to the source by restructuring and rewording. I fooled around with additional modifications to some sentence structures and wording, but the changes are only incremental, and I find that some of my rewording inadvertently took Khazar's text back closer to the source:

“Muradov was born c. 1958 in Grozny. He studied journalism at Moscow State University, graduating in 1982. He then joined the staff of Groznensky Rabochy, a weekly newspaper in Grozny that had been established in 1917. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Muradov became the paper's editor-in-chief. It was expected that the newspaper, formerly controlled by the Communist Party, would be independent. However, in 1993 Dzhokar Dudayev, president of Czechnya's new, unrecognized secessionist government, attempted to convert the paper into an official publication of his party. In reaction, Muradov and most of his staff quit, leading the newspaper to shut down. Muradov found work for a time teaching journalism at a local university, as well as reporting for a small regional publication. In 1994, amid the growing violence of the First Chechen War, he and his family left Grozny for the relative safety of Moscow.”

IMO, additional creative restructuring and rewording is likely to distort the facts, which I believe is a more serious error than generally reflecting the structure of the source. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I find Orlady's rewrite acceptable. Compounding matters, the CPJ website article is a shortened (bad IMHO) version of an article by CPJ journalist Olga Tarasov (which the website does not attribute the text to, plagiarizing themselves?). Information very close to the source could also be directly quoted. Nice quote by Muradov in article lead. Froggerlaura (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@Orlady: good job on the re-write!

@Froggerlaura: your example paragraphs make the problem more evident to me—it's more borderline than I first thought. My method of comparison was to tie each of the cpj refs in our article back to the CPJ source article one by one. My review should have been a little more "macro" in addition to "micro". --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that I erred in one sentence. Instead of "It was expected that the newspaper, formerly controlled by the Communist Party, would be independent", say "Initially, the newspaper, formerly controlled by the Communist Party, was independent." --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think Froggerlaura and Orlady do a good job here of demonstrating that the article follows a bit closely on the structure of the original and also that the creativity in the original is fairly low. I think it benefits from the change, but that the issues would be very unlikely to rise to the level of a copyright concern, which a court would probably determine with an "ordinary observer" test of the look and feel. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronological structure in biographical articles

I've made a post here which may be of interest. What I've asked there is whether it is actually possibly to copyright a standard structure to an article such as chronological ordering frequently used in biographical articles? My view is that this is not in fact possible, as many biographical dictionaries and articles published in many different places, by different authors, all claiming their own copyright, frequently follow the same chronological structure when describing a person's life story. Biographies when they are in a stub state are essentially collections of facts about a person's life arranged in chronological order. As a biography develops, it is possible to make some sections thematic, or to follow the 'house style' that Wikipedia biography articles tend to adopt, but in cases where there are few sources, and those sources do nothing more than arrange facts in chronological order, the structure of a Wikipedia article will of necessity also follow that structure. Care should be taken to avoid exact duplication of structure, but some duplication will likely always be present. It might also help to be clearer what level of structure is being discussed. You can have duplication of structure at the clause level, the sentence level, the paragraph level, the section level, and the article level. The approach to avoiding or fixing such duplication of structure can vary, which is why being precise on what structure is being discussed is important. What level of structure was being duplicated in the examples above? Carcharoth (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's down to sentence level with some clause repetition in this case. Each sentence in the source is mirrored (not verbatim but with same elements) in the the wiki article. The problem is mostly confined to the Background section where there is only one source to draw from, so mixture of source info is difficult. Froggerlaura (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I figured I might as well copy over some of my personal opinion there. :)

In terms of chronology and no other way to tell the story, there may be room for disagreement as regards plagiarism, which is not my major focus, but copyright law doesn't care about the ethics of whose work it is. :) All it cares about is whether or not the content is creative enough to warrant protection. If everybody writing a biography would include the same facts in the same order, the presentation is not regarded as creative. If I read a biography that says, "He was born. He went to school. He worked. He died," I can use exactly that same structure in writing my own biography, because there would be little to no creative thought in it. They are what we would generally agree are the major points of outlining a life.

It's a very delicate balance, deciding when the organization becomes creative. The longer our source is and the more closely we follow it, the more likely we are to be running into problems. Did he hold 12 jobs and they list 6? That begins to show some subjective thought. For the same reason, it is not a copyright infringement to reproduce a complete "list of works" in a biography, but may be to reproduce a "selected works", if the selection criteria is creative. The core question you have to consider when thinking about copyright issues in terms of structure is "how much thought went into this?" The more creative the content, the stronger the copyright protection. If multiple sources use the same structure, the case that the structure is uncreative is actually strengthened. :) But I still try to mix it up a bit by adding in unusual facts I dig up from obscure sources, and if I can only find one source that discusses a subject in depth, I will take only the most important facts. Sometimes detail is lost. :/

What usually raises my concerns in close paraphrasing issues is a blend of copied expression and duplicated structure. The more similar the pieces would seem to an ordinary reviewer, the more likely it is to be an issue. In determining substantial similarity, courts will often ask for an entirely subjective review of whether or not the overall look and feel of a piece is the same. If it is substantially the same, and there is not some legal defense (such as fair use) successfully advanced, then infringement has occurred.

I have only just today found this essay, "WHEN IS A KNOCK OFF AN INFRINGEMENT", and at first blush it looks like a good one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me just save you all some trouble here

While I appreciate the discussion here and below, I may as well make this decision moot by simply leaving Wikipedia. I'd been off for a while anyway, and was attempting a return after a diagnosis of chronic illness left me housebound for life this month. In retrospect, this is a silly place for me to be at this stressful juncture of my life, and facing discussion because I'm found to be in violation of a policy SG had to go back to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches to find is just the last indicator.
I've never claimed to be a perfect editor, and I do think Sandy's concerns here are valid ones that are worth discussing. I've edited in good faith, but it's still quite possible I'm on the wrong side of this gray area. So why not talk to me directly and calmly (on this page or elsewhere), give examples, and make suggestions for improvement instead of posting a public shaming that condemns my work as a whole, treats all my attempts to discuss the issue as bad faith, and offers no constructive suggestions? I'm tired of admins who are more interested in "Gotcha" than in actually helping editors improve their work, and tired of a community that lets such people run the place.
Anyway, the debate goes on, but if people feel that my case turns out to be actionable, I'm willing to return for whatever RfC, AN/I, etc. you wish to convene so that I can apologize and accept responsibility and punishment for any mistakes I've made; just e-mail me through my page. Other than that, I'm out, yos.
Sandy, just to set your mind at ease, our only previous encounters were in the Great DYK Flame War of Summer '11 when you repeatedly accused everyone involved in DYK of lacking any decency. I asked you a few times on this page to take the hostility down a notch, to which you never responded.
Good luck to all still fighting the good fight to create new content for the wiki. I do sincerely apologize for my shortcomings as an editor that have caused this kerfuffle. It's been a pleasure working with all of you, Khazar (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Argh, not again... I hope you at least check your messages, as MRG is liable to reply soon. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sad! I was soooo happy to see you return, Khazar, and you noticed. All the best for you personally, for health and well-being. (I don't want to spoil your clean talk, hope you look here.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't leave! I don't think this kerfuffle is that serious in the grand scheme of things and can easily be fixed (per Orlady's suggestions). There will be bullies in any forum, don't let them get to you. Froggerlaura (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your health problem, Khazar. Don't let the Plagiarism Paranoiacs get on your nerves. Let's assume they only want what's best for Wikipedia. But, it's a gray area, it's subjective, and, it's a matter of opinion. Take a break, then come back. Your humility alone makes you unique here! --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is most regrettable, but I can quite appreciate Khazar's preferring not to deal with this stress at this point. This is, after all, a volunteer activity. I'm not sure where best to note that I personally cannot see a problem with the passages reproduced above. When we get to "Do the new sentences have different information" I think we're setting the bar unreasonably high - and in effect requiring people to adopt as turgid and winding a writing style as I tend to have . . . I have looked hard for the passage seeming to be an echo or obviously derived - and it doesn't. I appreciate the seriousness of copyvio; I have raised the issue earlier on this page of plagiarism being important and distinct from whether the text is common domain; but with this sort of instance, I cannot see a problem. In my view Khazar did an adequate job telling the story in his own words. Orlady's (with the change made) seems to me equally good, not better. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with close paraphrase

Regardless of how this case works out, I think it illustrates that we as a project need to be on the same page about how we handle close paraphrase when we find it. Can we all agree that the above method, where posts where made to the nom page, the author's page, WP:ERRORS, another editor's talk, and here, is not how these situations should be handled? This is the worst possible outcome out of many. The above author was ready and willing to discuss the issues at the nomination page, but was instead forced to defend his writing choices on a widely-watched noticeboard. To be blunt, this shouldn't happen like this again.

• Suggested best practice - if you find problems related to plagiarism in a nomination, first try to address them on the nomination page. If the author is reticent, or denies that there is a problem, then seek a second opinion. Terminology is important too - if the problem is close paraphrase rather than blatant copy/paste, use "close paraphrase" rather than "copyvio". Close paraphrase can be inadvertent, but copyright violation is a real-world crime, and we don't want people to feel like criminals. Thoughts? The Interior (Talk) 03:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your suggested best practice, TI. (It should be adopted by SG immediately!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is useful to distinguish "close paraphrase" from "copyvio," even though, legally, a sufficiently close paraphrase may be regarded as a copyright violation. Wikipedians are used to thinking of copyright violation in terms of cutting and pasting material verbatim, an act both bright-line (it's quite obvious when this has occurred) and deliberate (it really can't be done accidentally). Close paraphrase is far more subjective—intelligent people acting in good faith can easily disagree on whether a particular piece of writing too closely follows the structure of its source—and need not be deliberate, particularly in cases where there are only a few obvious ways to structure the material. While maintaining this distinction might be argued to trivialize close paraphrase, I think it's also less likely to lead to reflexive hostility and indifference from those accused of doing it.

On a side note, could I make a general appeal not only to avoid personalizing this, but to avoid imputing motives in general? During some of the previous iterations of this debate, various motives have been ascribed to the "FAC people" or the "DYK regulars". While such nebulous terms do circumvent Wikipedia's prohibition on personal attacks, in practice, it simply means that many people are likely to read into them a veiled attack on themselves. I think we can discuss this reasonably without assuming other people in the discussion are tyrants, monomaniacs, or morons. Choess (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting but unworkable suggestion; once a DYK goes to the mainpage, the nomination page is closed, the nominators frequently unwatch (and don't return to) the articles, and the nomination page has nothing to do with WP:ERRORS. Also, reporting problems on the nomination page doesn't get issues addressed at DYK, which is where they are occurring. A more workable solution for dealing with the recurring issues would be to put procedures in place at DYK that address the long-standing issues (which do not only involve copyvio/plagiarism/cut-and-paste, but also involve reliable sourcing, faulty hooks, unsourced hooks, and glaring prose errors) going on the mainpage. There have been many suggestions over the years, a bit of progress (at least we have a nomination page now and an archived record of the unabating problem), but no substantial change in the problem affecting the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you feedback. I would disagree that this is unworkable, though: in the above example, the author responded to comments on the nom page within hours. Speaking for myself, 100% of my nom pages and their articles are still watchlisted. I appreciate efforts to solve problems and welcome discussion on concrete and well-thought out proposals for change. But when offering criticism, it very important that the criticism be a) constructive, and b) de-personalized. With the subject of close paraphrase and structure, a theoretical example is far more desirable than using a specific editor's product to illustrate a point. These are tried-and-true basic management techniques. The Interior (Talk) 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If I may offer some general feedback, I strongly advocate trying to minimize shock and shame for people who may have issues with close paraphrasing, and wherever discussion may best take place do like the emphasis on neutral terminology. My own practice has generally evolved more and more in that direction over the years I've worked copyright issues on Wikipedia, as I've had plenty of opportunity to see what gets the best result. (In my opinion, the best result is good practice for writing free content and a happy, productive contributor. If we both walk away feeling good, then it's a "win" for Wikipedia. :)) I really like the way Choess succinctly describes the issues with close paraphrasing and especially the difference between that and copy-pasting from a "good faith" perspective. Besides my work on Wikipedia, I've taught college composition and know that the art of paraphrasing is a difficult one...and sometimes most difficult for the best students. Students are taught for most of their lives to accurately recount what they're given, but then suddenly required to do it in different language. This is a hard-won skill for many people. Most of the contributors I've found with close paraphrasing issues (though not all) can and will moderate their approach if issues are explained constructively. If people are inadvertently made to feel ashamed, it can sap both their motivation to contribute and their belief that they have something worthwhile to contribute, and that's a shame.

In terms of the poll below, unfortunately, best language approaches for the problem is also not always an inborn skill. :) Just as I've seen a lot of people with copyright issues in my four-whatever years of doing copyright work, I've seen a lot of people trying to address copyright issues, and they are also doing important work. I try when I can to encourage good practices with them in neutral terms that avoid shaming or demotivating them from keeping an eye out for issues. If you're going to add language to guide whistleblowers, for lack of a better term, I would really suggest adding concrete guidance, because I would swear that in even the most abrasive, accusatory confrontations I've seen (and I've seen some doozies), the contributor thought the language was appropriate to the situation.

I think we need to avoid here shaming people who fall at either end of the "close paraphrase" continuum - whether that's those who need to come towards the "stricter" side to meet community standards or those who are already too strict. Insofar as we possibly can, we must take the conversation out of the realm of emotion and keep it firmly grounded in reasoned conversation. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A poll

In practice, all decisions on what should be regarded plagiarism, and how bad it is (say, acceptable, must be rewritten, or so-so but should not be repeated, or etc.) are a matter of on-wiki consensus. However, this is just a part of a more general issue of phrasing concerns with a DYK nom. Such concerns have bordered the line of direct accusation way too often in the past. Thus my suggestion is as follows: whoever is the whistleblower, he/she must follow the line "not guilty until decided so by consensus" and use an appropriate language. I believe this is part of the unspoken wikipedia civility code and therefore suggest a poll on that

• Support. The hostility atmosphere is becoming intolerable. People rush to accuse (say an "incorrect" DYK fact) even when they can't possibly know they are right. Materialscientist (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support. We really should not need to explicitly remind editors of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and the legal standard of innocent until proven guilty, but if more editors remembered them we'd probably get more done. And we'd lose fewer editors... August saw us lose 10 - 15 regular editors for a while, and that could have been reduced if everyone AGFed and was civil. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the consensus for this would be decided at WP:CIVIL or WP:COPYVIO, not here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky CCI

Please help with checking in the Contributor copyright investigation, User talk:PumpkinSky, 237 articles (of 729 touched) still need to be checked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Original Reviewer's Take

I'm sorry I'm late to this discussion (my house's internet is being all finicky lately); I was the one who originally reviewed Musa Muradov, so I figure I should at least say something in this discussion. I received the following message from User:SandyGeorgia yesterday: "Structure of almost the entire article copied from one source, removed from the mainpage". I feel that this is an egregious broach of WP:AGF, as I had obviously reviewed the exact same article and come to a completely different conclusion. A much better way of wording this would be, "The article Musa Muradov has come under scrutiny for being too closely paraphrased to the original article and has been removed from the queue. Could you comment on the discussion as the original reviewer?" Also, instead of "Plagiarism Dispatch", why not name this section "Possible Paraphrasing Issue?" I think it's obvious that there was no intention to copy the original source verbatim, and plagiarism has a negative connotation to it which implies exactly that.

With regards to whether or not this is paraphrased too closely, I stand by my original assessment. The article is in an encyclopedic form in its chronological order and I see no way of rearranging the fact of his life to avoid minor paraphrasing (the re-write examples shown up top are actually quite impressively done). It is all cited in-line with proper references (without such, it would actually be plagiarism and I would have duly reported it). It meets the DYK criteria otherwise, and I found the hook to be insightful and interesting. If there is consensus to reverse my original decision, I understand, but I feel I should make my opinion known. Nomader (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"I think it's obvious that there was no intention to copy the original source verbatim, and plagiarism has a negative connotation to it which implies exactly that." This is an example of the problem we face with language and a diverse community. :) While this is true in many places, on Wikipedia, it does not necessarily imply that; we accept that "inadvertent plagiarism" is possible here (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#How to avoid inadvertent plagiarism). If plagiarism requires intent, one can't inadvertently plagiarize. :) There was a lot of ink spilled over the issue back when that guideline was coming into being, and at one point it explicitly noted that some people have different definitions of plagiarism, but that was lost along the way. Calling this section "Possible paraphrasing issue" might have been better, though, to avoid the all-too-common confusion between plagiarism issue and copyright concerns. While often related, these are not at all the same, as citations may eliminate the former but not the latter. (Outside of linking to the guideline, I almost always avoid the use of the world "plagiarism." It just means too many different things to people, and to those who believe that plagiarism must require intent, it is a highly insulting word in itself.)

Regardless of the issue of whether and how much paraphrase exists in this article, though, I'm not sure I see how it would be an egregious breach of good faith to call out a potential copyright issue. WP:AGFC notes that it is not an assumption of bad faith to raise copyright concerns, but only to begin from the stance of presuming that copyright problems are intentional. Certainly, if somebody accused you of willfully overlooking copyright problems, that would assume bad faith! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well said! I was mostly referring to the tone in which I was notified and not the actual plagiarism notice, but I understand your point, and I apologize for coming out guns blazing with a link to WP:AGF and for using phrases like 'egregious breach'. These sorts of things only fan flames. That said, it might be worth it to have a discussion about the language that we use to discuss these sorts of things; I think tempers can easily flare when editors are informed that their work might be accidental plagiarism and there should be a more civil way of informing them. Maybe it would be worth it to dredge up that old conversation? But I understand your overall point and agree; thanks for the response! Nomader (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a DYK problem

That plagiarism and close paraphrasing is being discussed in this forum is because DYK performs a useful function in Wikipedia as it places new or enlarged articles under scrutiny. If I were to knowingly write a dodgy article, I would not nominate it for DYK. I have sympathy for Khazar, whose original article sparked this discussion because, in my view, Musa Muradov did not infringe policy. It seems a great pity that Khazar has been driven away by other peoples' attitudes and that the close paraphrasing issue has been taken to such extremes.

Detecting close paraphrasing is difficult and most reviewers of articles are nominators of other articles that they themselves have written. They are not necessarily the best people to take decisions on close paraphrasing and may spend no more time on their review than is necessary. When I have reviewed an article positively and later get a talk page message telling me of problems that I have missed, I find it discouraging. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not only a DYK problem. Your second paragraph seems a strong argument against QPQ reviewing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion please

Hello folks, I've reviewed and commented on Template:Did you know nominations/The Adventures of Abney & Teal, but not signed off on the nomination due to (what I see as) a lack of secondary sourcing, which is not strictly a DYK issue from what I can see, but in this current climate I would like someone familiar with reviewing to offer some guidance. Thank you. Someoneanother 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK articles have to be "within policy". So, if there are problems in the article that are worthy of a cleanup tag ({{reliable sources}} or {{primary sources}} or something like that), you could fail it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A QPQ review of a DYK nomination doesn't always conclude with an immediate positive sign-off or an immediate fail. Very often, as in the case of the review that "Someone" did, the reviewer asks for additional cleanup of the article. When things work out well, that review process leads to improvements in the quality of the article, after which the nomination passes. --Orlady (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found a secondary source discussing the programme itself, which was the sticking point, so I've passed the article. Thanks for your time. Someoneanother 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

HELP

Eh, help? I've been working on Template:Did you know nominations/2000 UEFA Cup Final riots. I've had to do a lot of rewriting--for style, grammar, agreement with sources, etc--and just finished rewriting the hook. I need someone to help me out here, since I'm tired of the article and the subject matter. a. Someone please check the hook for length and tone and et cetera. b. Please also proofread the article and tweak where necessary (nominator isn't god's gift to writing, and neither am I; plus, I don't care for the topic). c. Please check the numbers: there are a lot of newspaper reports citing injuries and arrests, and I am not sure that the content in the article properly reflects what the sources give (mind you, such reports may change quickly from one day to the other--fortunately, they're all in very reliable sources).

Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking organs from cadavers

In the fourth hook of Queue 5, "an organ taken off a cadaver" looks very odd to me. I think "an organ taken from a cadaver" is better. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, by Orlady. Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Zainal Mustafa

The reviewer has requested a second opinion regarding article neutrality (disclosure: this is one of my co-nominations) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm the original reviewer. After a thorough copyedit, the article seems good in almost every way. I just had some concerns about neutrality... mostly because of the topic: a rebel and religious martyr. The article is probably fine, as my review comments note, but I would feel better if someone else could look over the article before we pass it off. If others agree that it is neutral, then it is ready to be put in the queue without delay. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

1-lysolecithin on Queue 5

the hook needs to say "at least ten" and the link re-directed to 1-Lysophosphatidylcholine. --70.31.8.76 (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it, but only after it made it to the main page. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 6 is overdue now. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Admins, it's two hours overdue. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There's already a good stock of prep areas, this could be rectified with relative ease should a passing admin unversed in DYK want to save the day. GRAPPLE X 02:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm an admin and can try and help, but I don't see the prep areas... --Rschen7754 02:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

T:DYK/Q shows all prep areas and queues, and gives the order they should be updated. Each prep area page and queue page should contain instructions in their edit notices if I recall correctly. GRAPPLE X 02:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay I think I did it, please check to make sure I didn't break anything. --Rschen7754 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems in order. Just waiting to see when the bot picks it up (hoping it's not just at the next scheduled update time). GRAPPLE X 02:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Speak of the devil... GRAPPLE X 02:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Structure Plagiarism?

I've been thinking about this issue for quite a while. I think it warrants further discussion.

At first I pondered opening a CCI on myself--I cannot guarantee that I never produced a WP text in a way that the original structure is still visible, and if I had the time and commitment I would find such similarities in articles up to FA. I am not even sure to possess the language capabilities to always re-tell a story in entirely different vocabulary and structure; as non-native writer I have only so many possibilities to rephrase.

Neither am I a lawyer. Where I come from copyright violation entails a certain level of creativity on the side of the original source, we call that threshold of originality. A standard eulogy for a prize-giving does not generally reach this threshold and can therefore not be the basis of a copyright claim. (It might be different in the US.) Similarly, plagiarism of a standard text has to be blatant in order to be called that way, even more so if it is only the structure that is thought to be stolen.

To base a plagiarism claim solely on the structure of the original, this structure must be unquestionably unique, outstanding, and recognisable. A standard obituary, short biography, or description of events cannot be the basis of such claim. I would therefore be hesitant to introduce a new charge, "structure plagiarism", for DYK contributors, as it seems to have happened de facto with SG's post above.

Regarding the specific example I agree it is too close to the original. But this is based on what MRG calls a blend of copied expression and duplicated structure. There are still too many similarities in the text which alone raise concerns. For instance, "Muradov himself was trapped in a basement" occurs in both original and copy, and at least the strange "himself" should have been reworded.

MRG makes more valid remarks up here which do not seem to have had much impact on the discussion. This is a pity because she's clearly literate in this topic. Her linked off-wiki essay, for instance, makes clear that a judge can decide only the clearest cases, and that everywhere else a jury is required. Now, SG should certainly not be the judge. As part of a larger jury (the readers of this page) she should maybe open up to opinions of her fellows or stand to be outvoted; I observe that not everyone passed the same judgment on the Musa Muradov article.

Sorry for the long post, I really feel this has not been discussed at the appropriate depth and detail. --Pgallert (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I suspect that one problem is that structure of an entire segment, such as a paragraph or a biography section, is being conflated with structure of a sentence. Clearly the "copy and paste and then change, omit, or add a few words" approach means the sentence is pretty clearly derived. But I don't think we can say the same for the structure of a paragraph about someone's life or career. I asked poor, busy Moonriddengirl at her talkpage whether she could make a clear statement on the "structure" issue here for our guidance, but as I'd rather expected, she said there was no hard and fast guideline that could be stated. Nonetheless, someone's article was pulled off the main page for close paraphrasing that several of us have deemed not to merit concern. And at the time it was stated that the concern pervaded that person's work. This is a bad thing to have had happen, and we must endeavor to have it not happen again. Notwithstanding the seriousness of copyvio and plagiarism - awareness of which is not helped, in my view, by such cases where the suspicion turns out to have been ill-founded and hence the reaction hasty and excessive. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Rschen7754 23:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be overdue again, which would be the third time in the last two days? And now it's supposed to update on the :05's? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite strange. Why is only one queue filled when there are 35 verified hooks that can be used? I think we are in need of both more reviewers and more active admins in this area to prevent this happening a third time. Lord Roem (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem of reviewers, since we have that many hooks reviewed and ready to go. Only admins can put them into the prep areas and queues. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

ANYBODY can put hooks into the prep areas. I've added a few more hooks to prep 2, but I need to go do other things right now. --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh I was not aware of that. I'll figure out how and add a few. We still need an admin to move them to the queue. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Some additional nomination reviews also would help move the process along. When we have a lot of reviewed hooks about a few very similar topics (be that topic baseball players, English illustrators, horses that won the Derby, fossil insects, biographies of historical politicians, or old buildings), it's hard to create a balanced set of hooks. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

True. I noticed that as I just promoted a few to prep. I couldn't make the prep area balanced in terms of US/World; prep 2 is pretty world-heavy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I was also not aware non-admins could move items to prep areas. Thanks Orlady! I'll try to do a reviewing run in a few hours when I finish RL work. We should get editors to run through submissions to kick down the high backlog we currently have. Lord Roem (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed there are quite a lot of older nominations waiting for re-reviews; I just put the bendy red arrow on a few of them to make it more obvious. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Queue 3, February 11

Looks like I was just a minute or two too late with my corrections to prep area 1; someone will have to fix them in Queue 3 in the next seven hours.

• Third entry (Shiawase no Pan): "is" should be "was", and "between 28-29 January 2012" should be "between 28 and 29 January 2012" (never use a range with "from" or "between").
• Fourth entry (Spa Road railway station): please add a comma after "1836"

Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 17:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln and zombies

• The lead hook of Queue 3 was saved for Lincoln's birthday, but it is scheduled to spend very little time on February 12 in the U.S. – only 25 minutes in L.A. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As the author of that hook, I'd like to see it pushed back a hook or two. His birthday is Sunday (holiday observed Monday). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I swapped the lead hook with queue 4. --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• The titles of all three comic strips in the last hook of Queue 5 should be italicized. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Allen3 took care of the italics.--Orlady (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Prep 4 February 12

I would frankly like to see an independent reviewer be the one to approve Template:Did you know nominations/Coimbatore bypass for inclusion here. Nikkimaria raised "phrasings and structures" concerns with a source, and the reviewing editor, Ansumang, first helped with the edits designed to alleviate the problem, and then gave the nomination a new clean bill of health.

What bothered me was that instead of someone not involved with the review closing it and moving it to a prep area, Ansumang both closed it and inserted the nominated hook into Prep 4. This strikes me as a clear conflict of interest: isn't there supposed to be someone completely unaffiliated with the nomination who makes the final determination as to whether it's ready to be included, and that person the one who moves it to a prep area? (If not, it seems to me a significant break: each step in the process should allow for a fresh pair of eyes to spot potential problems.) The article could be perfectly fine, or it could still need more work. Since it's currently in the next prep area that will move into the queues and can be expected to hit the front page within a day, I thought it would be best to mention this now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't proper for Ansumang to fix the problem, declare the article to be fixed, and promote it. I put it back on the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)