User:Yksin/Sandbox5

Proposed policy or guideline: Plagiarism

I would like to propose a formal policy or guideline on plagiarism.

Background

In an article I'm involved with (fully protected article Battle of Washita River, it was discovered that there were a lengthy quote from a copyrighted source that was not in quotation marks (which has since been removed by an admin as a copyvio); but also that there was also an lengthy quotation from a public domain source with no quotation marks that had originally been sourced, but its source removed through sloppy editing during an edit war. Subsequently, I've been in discussion with the editor who originally placed the public domain text who researching maintains that it is unnecessary to put a quote from a public domain source in quotation marks so long as the text is cited. He particularly maintains this to be the case for published public domain information from the U.S. government. I maintain that "Quotation marks are always necessary when it's not your own writing. Otherwise it's plagiarism. This is the case whether it's in the public domain or not." The discussion continues at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Copyvio & misquoted footnote text removed; plagiarism discussion.

Present policy on plagiarism

Presently, references to plagiarism in Wikipedia policies/guidelines are scattershot and incomplete. As of this writing, what I've been able to find:

• WP:CITE#When you quote someone: "You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quotation, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks — "like this" — or single quotation marks if it's a quote-within-a-quote — "and here is such a 'quotation' as an example." For long quotes, you may wish to use Quotation templates."
  • Problem. Does not make it clear that all published material, regardless of whether it is copyrighted or in the public domain, must be set off as a quotation.
• WP:PD: "For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for whatever purpose. Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism."
  • Problem. While it makes it clear that proper attribution is needed for public domain material, it does not make it clear that quoted public domain material must be marked as a quotation.
• WP:COPYRIGHT#Using copyrighted work from others: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context."
  • Problem. Addresses only copyrighted works, & that incompletely.
• Currently, the very few mentions of plagiarism in policies/guidelines point to the mainspace article on plagiarism -- which is not a policy or guideline, so editors may not feel bound by what that mainspace article says.

Prior discussion

I posted about this issue at WP:VPP#Quoting public domain sources on 19 July 2007; to avoid losing that discussion through present VPP archiving policy, I copied that discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Quoting public domain sources & plagiarism where the original VPP can be read as well as more discussion from more editors. Consensus of editors who have so far weighed in on both pages is that any quoted text, whether it's copyrighted or in the public domain, needs to be both sourced and set off as a quotation (through use of quotation marks, are as a block quote). (So far there hasn't been any response at Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Plagiarism in quoted public domain sources, but I just posted it today, so we'll see.)

The problem of plagiarism in Wikipedia articles has been mentioned in previous discussions, such as at WP:NGR#Miscellaneous. It appears to be a common topic in discussions of proposed feature articles, where some editors seem to be confused about what plagiarism is, e.g.,

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2004#Chesapeake and Delaware Canal (where an editor apparently equates plagiarism with copyright violatoin, hence, "Look at the definition of public domain. It literally can't be plagarism).
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zambezi/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Basics of quantum mechanics, where an editor claims that not referencing sources, even if all if it was original writing (by an editor claiming to be an expert on the topic), is plagiarism -- i.e., equating inability to verify sources because no sources were given with plagiarism.

While I've made proposals at both Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Quoting public domain sources & plagiarism and Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Plagiarism in quoted public domain sources about language to clarify guidelines about plagiarism, it seems to me that a more unified, clear, and coherent statement about plagiarism is desirable, which wording changes at WP:CITE#When you quote someone, WP:PD, WP:COPYRIGHT#Using copyrighted work from others, and probably as well WP:MOS#Quotations.

Formulating a policy/guideline

I've never proposed a new policy or guideline here, so I don't know fully the process. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. But I do know it involves discussion. I believe that at the very least, a policy/guideline on plagiarism should incorporate the following points:

• A clear definition & description of what plagiarism is, basically: "the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgment." (from the plagiarism mainspace article).
• Examples to illustrate what plagiarism is.
• Why Wikipedia doesn't want plagiarism.
• Quoted text must always (1) be cited to its source; and (2) be identified as a quote, regardless of whether the source is under copyright or is in the public domain. Particularly if element 2 is missing, it's plagiarism.
• A claim of original authorship is implied by the lack of quotation marks, even if the source is attributed. Without quotation marks, it is assumed that the facts or arguments presented in a passage are based on the source, but that the authorship of the passage belongs to the editor who placed the text.
• I.e., if a fact or argument from a source is rephrased into the editor's own original words, sourcing the reference alone suffices; but if the fact or argument is a verbatim quotation, it must be also marked as a quotation through the use of quotation marks or by setting it off as a blockquote using the <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags.

Deleted text from Tom Anderson (politician)

In March of that year, an argument over bowling scores escalated into a shoving match, and eventually to McGuire locking herself in a bedroom of their shared Juneau apartment to call 911. According to Juneau police interviews with the pair, they had eaten dinner together that evening, each drinking several glasses of wine, and on their return home were arguing about bowling scores. In the course of the argument, McGuire grabbed the apartment keys from Anderson and told him he couldn't come into the apartment. Anderson told her, "No, I live here too," and grabbed the keys back. They grabbed the keys from each other several times before Anderson, last possessor of the keys, entered the apartment, and was told by McGuire that he needed to leave or she would call police. Anderson told her he was just going to go and sleep in the living room. McGuire locked herself in the bedroom and called 911. She asked police to "forget about it" after Anderson left the apartment. Both legislators had minor cuts on their right hands, but neither sought medical attention. The incident resulted in no charges, and and the two legislators later issued a written statement to the press stating, "We are best friends and colleagues. It's unfortunate that a disagreement, of a personal nature, between the two of us last night is being reported on. Last night was a misunderstanding and has been completely resolved."