User:Pgallert/There is no plagiarism problem

Discussions in November 2010 here, here, and dubious wording and advice at the time at Wikipedia:Plagiarism (in this version) and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing (in this version), have inspired me to write a response: There is no plagiarism problem on Wikipedia.

Plagiarism

Look at a very simple definition:

Plagiarism is the presentation of someone else's work (idea, rhythm, drawing, language) as your own.

The policy on plagiarism is Wikipedia:No original research; in article space you may not present any idea as your own, not even an idea that actually is your own. By hitting the <save> button you produce an entry to the page history that contains your name; you are claiming that you wrote this piece of text. If you referenced all of it, fine. If you put in obvious additions and filler words, fine. If you glued it together from different sources, also fine, unless you created a new reading of the text that is both non-trivial and supported by neither source. In this case you have produced a synthesis which is a version of original research and equally not allowed.

The opposite of plagiarism is attribution, the fight against plagiarism is to request sources. If you use an idea from somewhere and do not reference it, it is plagiarism. If you use the idea from one source and attribute it to another source, then this is not plagiarism but an attribution mistake. If you did it on purpose, it is vandalism. To request sources works very well on Wikipedia, also in fora that now came under criticism like Did You Know? and Featured Articles. There is no plagiarism problem on Wikipedia.

Plagiarism is dishonesty. A lie. Unfortunately, this guideline has it totally wrong in so many places that I dare not look further. But remember, it is only a guideline. You are allowed to do better than that.

Close paraphrasing

Using another author's language (the way they write, the words they use) about the subject they're credited for is what is commonly called "close paraphrasing". Close paraphrasing is plagiarism, even if it is attributed to the right source. Because if you write something and don't put it in double quotes but give a reference, you are saying "The idea comes from that source, but I put it in these words." And you did not put it in these words yourself, the author of the source did.

There are three different ways to deal with closely paraphrased paragraphs:

1. Rewrite the paragraph.
2. If the paragraph's statements cannot reasonably be expressed any different, or if the combination of the author's language and the things they say is important, convert the paragraph into a direct quote.
3. If you don't have the time to rewrite and if the paraphrased source is in the Public domain or under a license that allows adaptation and re-use (like for instance CC-BY-SA), acknowledge that idea and wording have been taken from the source, for instance like this:

   This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Close paraphrasing is certainly not allowed in any academic context, and any serious encyclopedia is situated within such. Wikipedia with all its SpongeBob SquarePants content is not completely situated in an academic context, sometimes not even on secondary school level. But all articles that claim they are, should not have close paraphrases in them. Close paraphrasing of Public Domain sources is allowed on Wikipedia per this essay. But remember, it is only an essay. If doubly attributed (idea and wording), paraphrasing is not a problem.

Depending on how close the paraphrasing actually is, and what license the original text carries, it can develop into a copyright problem. This is an entirely different concept that has nothing to do with plagiarism, I cover it in a section below.

Paraphrasing of online sources can be detected by bots, that's why close paraphrasing should not be a problem at all. That it currently often goes undetected is not a technical problem—I wouldn't go as far as calling it a management decision, but paraphrasing is just often not seen as a serious ethical offense. There is a paraphrasing problem on Wikipedia but it is not that editors paraphrase. The problem is that there is no sufficient awareness that there is a problem.

Pastiche

Using another author's language about a different subject is pastiche, for instance if you express a present–day event in the language of Shakespeare. Pastiche is an art form, and as such discouraged on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. There is no pastiche problem on Wikipedia.

Copyright violation

It has been written a thousand times on Wikipedia: Copyright violation and plagiarism are different concepts. They may both be present at the same time but they are different.

A copyright violation is the use of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder, or in violation of the copyright conditions. Whether you attribute it or not does not matter, unless the license condition requires attribution. However, a mere citation of a few lines of text is generally allowed, provided you do not cite so much of it that the resulting article actually resembles the original or a substantial part thereof. An image or illustration is normally a substantial part of any publication—that's the reason why you may almost never use a table, an image, or a graph from a copyrighted work.

Copyright violation is an crime. Theft. There is a copyvio problem on Wikipedia but hundreds of editors are working on it.

See also

• Verifiability and plagiarism are the hammer and anvil of astute wikilawyers ‎