This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
As of July 8, 2008, there are still a couple of sentences that need to be rewritten:
"In 1907, he published a book entitled Associational Anarchism, in which he advocated the "free association of independent individuals" is word-for-word from the source.
"denouncing the Communist dictatorship as the worst tyranny in human history" is too similar to "denounced the Communist dictatorship as the worst tyranny in human history". GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have refactored the first statement, although it really is atomic: the book was published in 1907, it was called A.A. and he advocated "quote" in it — there aren't very many ways you can combine that into a sentence. The second claim is citing, not plagiarising the source, although it was not appropriately attributed as such when you pointed it out. Identifying sentence fragments as plagiarism is really going off the deep end of copyright paranoia, especially considering the seven-line quotes included in other articles. Using material from other sources is well within the bounds of fair use, provided that it is cited appropriately and an excessive amount (i.e. successive paragraphs lifted unaltered from the material) is not used. Regards, Skomorokh 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider it copyright paranoia so much as passing off someone else's writing as one's own. If identical phrasing is going to be used, it should be included in quotation marks to indicate that the statement is not an original work by the author of this article. Perhaps I've spent too many years in university, but the sentence in question (without quotation marks to indicate that it is someone else's work) would certainly be sufficient to get a "0" on an assignment in any university. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not an academic paper, which is original research. All we do is compile other people's work. I don't need to tell you that original interpretation by article authors is anathema. Our only concerns with using the text of others are a) whether it is reliable b) whether it is attributed and c) whether its use breaches fair use guidelines. Regards, Skomorokh 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the disctinction. I respectfully disagree with your opinion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I echo GaryColemanFan's concerns here - when you're quoting a section of text "attribution" requires indicating that not only the facts/ideas, but also the text itself, come directly from the source. This means treating them as quotes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen. We are discussing sentence fragments that contain neither unique or idiosyncratic phrasing nor controversial statements. Quotation is not appropriate.
If you honestly believe it is even conceptually possible to plagiarize stylistically unremarkable uncontroversial sentence fragments, feel free to refactor the offending line. The cat sat on the matThe mat was sat on by the cat. Crisis averted, cancel the lawsuit. Skomorokh 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Lev Chernyi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.