Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plagiarism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. This is not the proper venue for changing a guideline, and its participants seem more than willing to discuss changes. Laser brain (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Plagiarism

This "guideline" is a quite pernicious little piece of work. It starts off all sugar plum and apple pie, by saying that that we should attribute all text which is taken from other sources: fair enough, no argument with that. It then descends into a long academic discussion of what is "plagiarism" (a topic which is not devoid of dispute in itself), and what should and should not be acceptible on Wikipedia (equally disputed). It was the subject of a

• Keep. Extremely useful and informative page, and unfortunately a guideline not adhered to often enough on this project, despite its serious level of importance if we are to maintain any semblance of respectability. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The page was recently promoted to guideline with over 80% support at RfC. Promoted after an RfA demonstrated empirically that a guideline was needed. Durova^Charge! 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The
    WP:ESPERANZA, which is a topic well known to several of the promotors. Physchim62 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The nomination misses the sequence of events. An RfA passed narrowly, substantial plagiarism concerns came to light shortly after its closure, and the matter went to RFAR where it was moving toward acceptance until editors retired. A well-publicized RfC with clear consensus is normally enough to promote, but in light of the problems that were arising it became clear to the community that a guideline was absolutely necessary. At any rate, one doesn't MfD an active guideline. Durova^Charge! 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "guideline" is sufficiently disputed, by multiple editors other than myself, for an MfD to be appropriate. You know this well, but you choose to ignore it in your Charge!. Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you dislike a signature that much you could have raised the matter at user talk. Much simpler than MfD. ;) The speedy keep stays; disruptive nomination. Durova^Charge! 15:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This guideline underwent an RFC in April (see
  specific subsection on plagiarism) for years now, since 2006, if I'm remembering correctly; "Editors engaged in ongoing plagiarism who do not respond to polite requests may be blocked from editing." This is not new to this guideline or new practice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In which case, why the new guidline? Just so that there can be a Wikipedia:Plagiarism noticeboard and Plagiarism Patrols throughout the encyclopedia? If the guidelines exist already, there is no need for this one: that the promotors insist on pushing this through at any cost shows that they aspire to something more. Physchim62 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plagiarism is a separate issue from copyright infringement and should not handled under that umbrella, even though the two sometimes overlap. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And why not? You are admitting that the goal of the guideline is to remove information which is legally included in Wikipedia articles on the basis of a moral standard which is of very disputed applicability to this project. The promotors of this "guideline" wish to turn Wikipedia into some sort of writing class, where every piece must be absolutely original so that we can judge the talents of the writer: it comes as no surprise that the initiative was born and raised in the
        ESPERANZA!" Physchim62 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I do not know anything about ESPERANZA, which predates me, but I do note that none of those six people who opposed "guideline" status called for deletion. Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive_3#RfC shows me that User:Cedars said, "There is no concern with keeping this article on plagiarism in Wikipedia for reference but to upgrade it to a guideline is unnecessary." Others said variations of one IP contributor's comment that "I have serious concerns about the text of this proposed guideline as it presently stands," calling for overhaul rather than elimination (some specifically supported the concept, but not the present language, of a guideline on plagiarism). The only person who seems to have opposed on principle during the RfC was User:Philcha, who said, "Not another bloody guideline!" and who has subsequently challenged the designation as guideline. (In a "straw poll" weighing whether that challenge tag should be removed begun less than a week ago, 7 people (including me) have stepped forward in support of the guideline status, while only 3 so far (include the nominator of this MfD) have stepped forward even in favor of challenging it). Again, blocking editors on the basis of plagiarism predates this guideline by several years. Wikipedia is quite capable of creating its own standards. "Original research" is also legal for inclusion, but core policy is that it doesn't belong. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I forgot to answer the "And why not?" Because Copyright is a core, legal matter with no room for dispute; similarly,
            WP:NPOV. Copyright, like BLP, deserves special and separate handling because it can create legal issues for the project. Further, copyright decisions are based on Foundation mandate and US law. There is considerably more room for standard consensus in shaping a plagiarism guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Keep. We definitely need a guideline on the matter, and this seems to be the agreed-upon one. Any issues should be approached through the normal process of editing such guidelines, not by attempting deletion. Also, I don't see any excessive reference to "academia" in the current guideline, so I'm not certain how that's a reason to delete. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The guideline has had multiple problems, many of which were brought up and, it seemed to me, generally acknowledged, towards the end of the RfC. Discussion then petered out, without promotion. Durova single-handedly promoted it to guideline status some weeks later. It currently has the Disputed tag. I am against a Delete at this point, but the concept of what plagiarism should be in a Wikipedia context, and the readability of the text, still need work.
  As the nominator said, editors in Wikipedia are expected NOT to do original research, so it is inappropriate to apply plagiarism principles created for academics who are supposed to do original research. In the academic, student-essay sense, each and every good Wikipedia article is plagiarised, since it does not and must not add new thoughts to the debate. (To clarify, if a university student delivers an essay that does not contain any original thought, but restricts itself to summarising the ideas of others, they will get a "fail" mark for having plagiarised others' work, even if everything in their essay is fully attributed and cited.) It may well be that we don't need a separate plagiarism guideline and that everything said here can be profitably integrated in other existing policies and guidelines (and indeed, some of it may already be covered there), but for the moment I would like to give this guideline and the ongoing discussions on its talk page a shot, to see if it can mature into useful and pragmatic advice that's of practical use to editors and results in better articles. Until such time it should be kept with the Disputed label in place. I am also against a speedy keep, since I would like to see more input and feedback from other, previously uninvolved editors. JN466 15:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Disruptive nomination. There are right ways and wrong ways to object to Wikipedia policy, this is one of the Wrong Ways. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One issue I would particularly welcome wider community input on is the proposed notion that even if a source is reformulated and paraphrased sufficiently for there to be no copyright violation, the writing might still be plagiarism. (related discussion here). By adopting this approach, we are in effect telling editors, "So far you thought that in re-expressing the content of a source it was enough to avoid copyright violation. Now we are telling you that your text should really have no similarity to the source text at all, unless you use an explicit quotation."
  I wonder how practicable this is. User:Philcha brought up concerns on the talk page that some exemptions would have to be made – text should not become less readable than the original because people are fastidiously trying to avoid reusing even brief sequences of words occurring in the source; in some cases precision and the avoidance of OR might simply require the editor to reuse some of the words in the source; some things (in the legal arena, in science, etc.) can only be said one way to be right, requiring substantial duplication of the source wording; etc. While the aspiration to strive for original writing is surely right, I wonder if we are not asking too much of people in making this requirement a guideline, and if the balance between making it easy for everyone to contribute and expecting people to fastidiously avoid the duplication of source wording, using an even stricter standard than that of copyright rules, is right. JN466 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not the forum to discuss individual factors in the guideline or even whether this should be a guideline. This forum is specifically for discussing deleting the page. Input on relevant issues can be invited in any of the usual ways of
    dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I understand what you are saying, but this proposed principle, that we should go beyond copyright requirements to avoid plagiarism, is a key reason why
      WP:PLAGIARISM; instead, the relevant ideas could be incorporated elsewhere. JN466 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • That has nothing to do with the point of deleting or not deleting this page, unless you've changed your mind. You've already opined that the page should be kept. Discussions related to the content beyond that belong elsewhere. This board has a specific purpose. The MfD page itself says, "Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." (Also, see Wikipedia:Speedy keep: "The page is a policy or guideline. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy.") --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not familiar with the guidelines governing the use of MfD, but have assumed that the nomination was made in good faith. JN466 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I presume that it was made with full conviction that deleting it would be best for the project, but "Speedy Keep" makes clear that guidelines should be speedily kept. Deletion of this would be blatantly inappropriate. This is not the forum for it. (I did not quote from the MfD page to cast any aspersions on the nominator's intentions, but to explain why I do not believe it is appropriate to prolong the discussion simply to get feedback on content questions.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue xFD is not the place to get rid of unwanted policies/guidelines ect. Agathoclea (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "a quite pernicious little piece of work" is not much of a raionale for deletion; claiming the guideline is based on "prevailing guidelines at U.S. universities" ignores the considerable effort put into avoiding exactly that; the guideline was written precisely for the purpose of collecting guidance into one place to reflect existing community consensus on best practice to avoid plagiarism on Wikipedia; and the nominator has already threatened to bring any block based on long-standing practise against serial plagiarisers to ArbCom. Or Speedy Keep as an out-of-process nomination. Take your pick. Franamax (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Nomination is disruptive and out of process. — Jake Wartenberg 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Avoiding plagarism is an important part of any academic project, whether it be a high school history paper, a graduate thesis, or an encyclopedic article. I was honestly shocked that we had not had this guideline before this past year, but now that we do have it, we ought to have it with the strength of policy, not just guideline. In any case, the page was properly put up for RfC and was strongly supported with what I see as a reasonable consensus to support. In addition, the FlyingToaster mess on
  the village pump are the places to bring it up, not XfD. NW (Talk) 20:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The nominators arguments that:
  • Some of the recommendations at WP:Plagiarism are not appropriate for editing on wikipedia.
  • It should not be a guideline or policy

can both be discussed on the talk page and are not valid reasons for deletion. Heck, we even retain pages for proposals that have been rejected. However, I will advice against speedy close since that will just mean that we will be back here in a month. Let the best arguments for deletion be made and evaluated here, so that we can settle the issue. Abecedare (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.