Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

26 November 2010

All reviewed

SCV for 2010-11-26 Edit

2010-11-26 (Suspected copyright violations)
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • João Pessoa Cavalcanti Albuquerque. CSBot reporting at 14:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Cut and paste move fixed by investigator or others. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. History restored for attribution. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
  • Blow molding is relisted to permit rev-deletion of the copyvio problems in its history. It was closed a few days ago, but a contributor requested access to the history for the purpose. Please check the rewrite to make sure it is not derivative of content added by User:Aikshahchaodannanajia. Revisions from 13:03, 27 February 2009 to my first should be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Redeleted. I don't see any sign that it was used, but perhaps the contributor did not find as much usable content as he had anticipated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Eek! Computers. :) I've asked Doug to look at the rewrite, since he detected the original problem. I'm not comfortable enough with the jargon to find it easy to judge paraphrasing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Doug says the rewrite is okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • talk) 00:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • A review suggests that content does follow closely on Halloween: from pagan ritual to party night. For instance:

The earliest known reference to ritual begging on Halloween in English speaking North America occurs in 1911, when a newspaper in Kingston, Ontario reported that it was normal for the smaller children to go street "guising" (see below) on Halloween between 6 and 7 p.m., visiting shops and neighbors to be rewarded with nuts and candies for their rhymes and songs.

Compares to p. 76 of that source:

In 1911, a Kingston newspaper reported that it was normal for the smaller children to go street guising between 6 and 7 p.m., visiting shops and neighbors to be rewarded with nuts and candies for their rhymes and songs.

This kind of handling of non-free content is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Information is free for reuse, but creative expression is not, except that brief excerpts may be explicitly quoted in accordance with
non-free content policy and guideline. What remains of this content should be evaluated, too, to see if other problems exist: [1], [2], [3] should be evaluated to see if it, too, follows its sourcing too closely. For instance, some of the content was copied from this Wikipedia article. I'm evaluating further. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: the closely paraphrased content was part of a copy-paste from Trick-or-treating. Once I finish investigating Halloween, I'll look more closely at it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY All attributed. I've truncated the closely paraphrased sentence at both pages. It was entered in a single edit quite some time back. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eep! Do we have to have the BigUgly™ talk template? Thanks for having taken a look by the way, Moonriddengirl.
I've always followed Copying within Wikipedia for as long as it's existed myself--when I've intra-copied (typically, edit summaries were suitable), and similar attributory measures for any merging done around the 'pedia. The template has been optional as long as I can remember (even used it myself on occasion). What's wrong with article null edit summaries? Hmm, there is a growing list inside it. If the plan is to include all instances it'll be long. Please don't get me wrong, I don't deny the issue's importance.
This topic has...been broached on the talkpage recently. The cluster of articles—which're all start-class at best—act as an ouroboros where content gets shifted back and forth. Something of pseudo–summary-style, too. Significant portions may well not be worth keeping. For clarity, 'Patient Zero' for the closely paraphrased content was "Trick-or-treating". At least 3 close paraph. instances, I believe, including the above; entered in a couple of edits, then slightly ce'd—the usual I guess. (The problematic sentences weren't my additions, I hasten to add.) I appreciate the issues of intra-attribution, over-extensive use of non-free content and close paraphrasing are related yet distinct.
I see the {{close paraphrasing}} H'ween template was removed; was my usage of it okay, with removal on account of the issue being deemed resolved? My whiny comment notwithstanding, the time and benefit of y'alls experience is warmly appreciated. :)  –Whitehorse1 16:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) So far as I know, the list isn't growing; it's been stable since I last edited it at 16:00. What's wrong with the template on the talk? It serves a useful function, and the talk page's prettiness isn't really visible to our readers anyway. :) I'll look more closely at Trick-or-treating and the edits around it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the article, and the sentence was added in February 2008 in an edit all in its own. The only other changes to that article in February and April were minimal and included one clear quotation. Can you help me identify the other close paraphrasing instances that you've found? They may have been added to Trick-or-treating in other edits. My mechanical detector is only finding mirrors, so narrowing that down would be very helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. The template was fine. It was only removed because I presumed I had taken care of it. If I haven't, I'd be pleased to do more scrubbing, but assistance finding the problems would be very helpful!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it was a single item when I first looked. :) After the addition to the daughter articles and its growth, by the time I'd looked around then previewed a comment a few times it'd stabilized.
True, the template does serve a useful function, albeit as one alternative or supplementary method (the project pages say things like 'it may also be helpful to', 'attribution can be belatedly supplied by...or via talk page attribution using'). As it's standalone, particularly with multiple listitems it can be large & obtrusive. Project banners would be, but we've the WikiProjectBannerShell option to collapse them. On account of its chunkiness, talkheader template use is limited, to high-traffic pages. It can't be included among the articleHistory template, created to streamline multiple review process standalones, either. It just dances to the beat of its own drum. :)
The Halloween page some time back split off into subarticles, although most content wasn't that good originally and tended to be original research added one October. Since then content is shuffled around among the article cluster, but isn't
synchronization in any real sense. Typically a chunk or two of varying size from one is inserted in another, which may or may not've been its original home, then deleted in one, but remaining in another, from which it's transferred around again to stay awhile. Something like H > ToT > H > ToT > and back, only involving more related articles that each cover common aspects for context; usually in different ways. I shudder to think how often it's occurred. You can probably see how the template could need lots of space! The mainly seasonal interest nature is probably a factor, too. It's sometimes better to just remove redistributed poorly sourced material of course. Incidentally, the closely paraphrased content among the intra-copied material is linked in the template diffs? Mirrors are a real problem in topics like this I agree. –Whitehorse1 21:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the bookquote above was worst of the 3:
  • ToT/H article: [4] / [5]? "At the time of substantial transatlantic Scottish and Irish immigration that brought the holiday to North America in the 19th century, Halloween in Scotland and Ireland had a strong tradition of "guising"
  • Rogers book: "At the time of substantial Irish and Scottish immigration to North America, Halloween had a strong tradition of guising and pranks,"
  • ToT/H article: "The souling practice of commemorating the souls in purgatory with candle lanterns carved from turnips, became adapted into the making of jack-o'-lanterns."
  • Rogers book: "The making of jack-o'-lanterns was an adaptation of the old custom of commemorating souls in purgatory with candles cradled in turnips."
  • How peculiar. :/ When I did a wikiblame search for the first match (the one I tagged above), I found it entering in February 2008. This content was added almost two years later from the same author by a different contributor. I've removed the second sentence, but revised the third, which was more thoroughly paraphrased to be sure. Maybe somebody good with templates could shrink the "multi copied" template. I had no idea there was so much inbreeding in this topic. :) I've only really run into that kind of shuffling in Catholic articles, for reasons I've not yet figured out. Stuff seems to go back and forth in those like crazy! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, that was exactly the term I thought of when looking at the topic as well. :) Perhaps, poorer content is moved from one article so it'll become
      Somebody Else's Problem; later, it returns because somebody else likes it--or in the case of Catholic articles, is welcomed back like a Prodigal Son! Thanks for the fixes you made, they're a vast improvement. By way of lending a hand, I'll give some thought to the best way to improve the "multi copied" template and put in a amendment request at WP:RT. I'd do it myself, but we want it to work afterwards. ;) –Whitehorse1 10:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2010_November_26&oldid=1083922653"