Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-07-02

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-07-02. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism (6,939 bytes · 💬)

The Internet is shortening the distance, raising awareness but in some cases gives students, researchers the possibilities that are lowering the education and resarch quality (plagiarism - copy & paste, …). Plagiarism is “at home” everywhere. I would like to inform you about the positive effects that caused the nationwide Central Repository of Theses and Dissertations and nationwide Plagiarism Detection System (we are using the name ANTIPLAG to speak about of both systems) in Slovakia.

All Slovak higher education institutions are obligatory users of ANTIPLAG since 2010. Since September 1st 2011 there is public access (open access) enabled to the central repository. In two months we will have in the CR more than 300 thousand of theses and dissertations.

Independent international research project “Impact of Policies for Plagiarism in Higher Education Across Europe” (IPPHEAE, EU funded, 2010-2013, Project Lead Partner: Coventry University, United Kingdom) carried out a survey in all EU countries. They prepared country reports for 27 EU countries (http://ippheae.eu/project-results). In the report “Plagiarism Policies in Slovakia” you can read this:

“There were some notable differences between the Slovak surveys and the EU average. Almost all Slovak students (99%!) become aware of plagiarism before or during their bachelor studies. The EU average shows that 20% of students become aware of plagiarism during their masters/PhD degree or are still not sure about it.”

" ... Slovak students are the most aware of plagiarism among all EU countries"

"The most outstanding example of good practice is definitely the existence of national repository of theses. As it is run centrally and universities are obliged to upload their theses, students from all institutions have theoretically the same conditions. The other aspect is that the software tool provides just a protocol for matching with other sources. The decision about whether a given case is plagiarism or not lies with teachers and/or the examination committee and these may not always follow the same procedures."

"Compared to other countries, Slovakia should be praised for its achievements. And it already was: The European Commission has awarded the Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information the European Prize for Innovation in Public Administration." More: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?section=admin-innovators

"The responses from Slovak students demonstrated the highest level of understanding about plagiarism within the whole Europe. Their unwillingness (in comparison with other countries) to receive more training on plagiarism is therefore understandable. The research team of the IPPHEAE project would also like to praise Slovakia for existence of national repository of theses and built-in plagiarism detection tools."

In case of your interest you can contact us, your questions and feedback are welcome; you have the possibility to read these papers:

Barrier to thriving plagiarism. Conference paper - The 5th International Plagiarism Conference, 2012. Available at: http://archive.plagiarismadvice.org/documents/conference2012/finalpapers/Kravjar_fullpaper.pdf

Strategies and responses to plagiarism in Slovakia. PLAGIARISM ACROSS EUROPE AND BEYOND - Conference Proceedings, 2013, pp. 201-215 Available at: http://ippheae.pefka.mendelu.cz/files/proceedings.pdf.

The Occurrence of the Terms akademická etika and akademická integrita in Texts on the Internet and in the Media, 2013. Available at: https://www.vedatechnika.sk/Blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=89 or http://ncpvat.cvtisr.sk/buxus/generate_page.php?page_id=938.

• Yes, plagiarism is huge and at the same time the global problem. It is interesting that is not solved on a country level. The only exception, in my opinion, is Slovakia. Slovakia has an unique experience with plagiarism fight at higher education institutions on a national level. There are operated two cooperating systems: Nationwide Plagiarism Detection System + Nationwide Repository of Theses and Dissertations (since May, 2010). More details you can find here:[[1]].

Kravjar (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

.

← Back to 2012-07-02

Discuss this story

• Great article about a great solution to a huge problem. It should be clear that the problem of plagiarism starts at the top. University administrators need to take action to prevent plagiarism at all levels, not fight against the exposure of plagiarism as an "undignified spectacle." Plagiarism likely occurs at all university levels in all countries, simply because administrators do very little to stop it. No one country should be singled out, but those countries where a doctorate is often used as a resume-polisher for politicians, are particularly at risk. Based on my experiences in Russia and Eastern Europe in general, there could be huge problems there. I also expect that there are similar problems in the UK and the US. No country is immune, as far as I can tell. Smallbones (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether the next move is to boost participation at those wiki sites, perhaps both from the ranks of the movement and by attracting outsiders in. More participants means more can be scrutinised, and a greater chance the process will eventually force the universities and supervisors/instructors to take the matter more seriously. In my view, supervisors need a good boot up the ... on this. It's the cost of doing business, and they need to be professionally thorough in conveying the ethics to their charges. Nothing less will do. Tony (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I have not seen any, but I would love to be directed toward, or have someone create, and automated plagarism checking tool for Wikipedia, and perhaps it could be used beyond Wikipedia. Do we have any such tools? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I have been testing plagiarism detection software since 2004 [2], but the software does not live up to our expectations. If you do have two texts you want to compare, VroniPlag Wiki has implemented Dick Groene's Sim_text in Java-Script for coloring similarities in texts: [3]. You put one text in the left box, one in the right and press "Texte vergleichen!". --WiseWoman (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools (3,158 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-07-02

Discuss this story

With regard to the "Fæ" case, I and MBisanz are not the only named parties. --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The others mentioned were added near the end of the evidence phase. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Perth case was opened in regards to the wheel warring -- the Move Review process didn't even really come up until I implemented the decision. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, a correction to the Falun Gong case - the decision won't be posted at least until the 8th, as other commitments and complications have prevented the drafters from being able to review the case in a timely manner. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Proposed decision. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

All corrected, thanks guys :) James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:09am • 00:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The change in the description of the Perth case needs more changes actually. The Perth case is reviewing administrator conduct and actions (mainly in relation to a move request concerning the Perth article), but the case was opened following a wheel-war; the case is not limited to reviewing a wheel-war. Also, the move review process was brought up well-before SarekOfVulcan used his tools in the way that he did. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Whoa Nelly! ArbCom is now attempting to de-sysop on their own initiative? This looks like creeping arrogation of power. While the non-hierarchical model Wikipedia has attempted to use is not without problems, it also has massive benefits. The desire for structure and "leadership", evident from the earliest days, pulling in the contrary direction to the philosophy of the majority of early Wikipedians, may in the longer term prove the undoing of the community, the sacred tenet of open editing and the goal of delivering free knowledge. Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC).
  

Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations (3,347 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-07-02

Discuss this story

I've been solicited twice already to write stuff into wiki to promote. One was OK (Consumer Reports) prob clean motive. The other NOT clean drug rep, and how did they get my email address??

Scary too that stuff has vanished from my talk. Gone as though it never happened. I wanted to recontact as requested the Wiki Foundation guy posted special survey about my experiences re strange edits suggesting follow the money conflicts. Nobody in wiki like administrators should have the power to make text vanish. Nobody should have the power to warn or block re edit war unless under strict rules (3x for ex).

I almost quit already once when an editor undid HOURS of my work researching then writing clean re cancer green tea health benefits claiming that a very (simplistic) FDA statement was better than pubmed research so much so he claims / enforces complete deletion! But then come back because one of my best friends DIED from "prostate cancer". Actually bad doctoring. I look for solutions.

I recommend a global ban on conflict of interest evidenced by edits specifically that are biased. Bias is easy to show in scientific topics. See how Yobol, adjkasi, and jmh649 sent me to irrelevant wiki pages to support their claims. Look how they immediately appeared and undid my edits giving irrelevant advise and links. My edits were well intentioned. Look how they tried to scare me off from entering new facts (Cochrane) demanding that I prove cochrane is peer reviewed!! Look how they diluted the final texts several ways, though they monitor maintain the original shown was worse by their own edits, or reverted back, or burried key words and sentences.

PS be nice if this page had spellcheck. I type fast as I speak, and read a page in a slow glance, but fixn spelling takes more time than orig text.32cllou (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, nothing has been deleted from your talk page; its deletion log is empty. Perhaps edits have been removed, but they are all still there in your edit history. As for how people got a hold of you via e-mail, they probably used Special:EmailUser/32cllou, since you have email enabled on your account (in Special:Preferences). Finally, some browsers, such as Google Chrome, include spell-check in the browser itself. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Maybe the Foundation guy contacted me some other way, though I don't know how. I changed my email pref, and will install Chrome.32cllou (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC) PS you senior editors really should have ways to ban editors that obviously degrade wiki. I offered code identification, but could provide examples of obvious mal intent. For example, take a look at this editors' harmful changes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_screening&diff=500890210&oldid=499986965 32cllou (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Featured content: Heads up (496 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-07-02

Discuss this story

Went to the Icelandic Phallological Museum 2 months ago, fascinating stuff. But the image used in this Signpost page is taken at the old location before it's moved to the capital city. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe? (3,359 bytes · 💬)

This draft is actually linked from the Signpost. Some mistake surely. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant my mistake in forgetting to remove {{Signpost draft}} from the article. Sorry about that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

CIPR has the right idea. There are no genuine improvements a PR professional could want to make that can't be done without directly editing the page. A little extra patience and effort to follow that rule is all it takes to improve the situation 100x. User:King4057 12:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC) (EthicalWiki)

I've been solicited twice already to write stuff into wiki to promote. One was OK (Consumer Reports) prob clean motive. The other NOT clean drug rep, and how did they get my email address??

Scary too that stuff has vanished from my talk. Gone as though it never happened. I wanted to recontact as requested the Wiki Foundation guy posted special survey about my experiences re strange edits suggesting follow the money conflicts. Nobody in wiki like administrators should have the power to make text vanish. Nobody should have the power to warn or block re edit war unless under strict rules (3x for ex).

I almost quit already once when an editor undid HOURS of my work researching then writing clean re cancer green tea health benefits claiming that a very (simplistic) FDA statement was better than pubmed research so much so he claims / enforces complete deletion! But then come back because one of my best friends DIED from "prostate cancer". Actually bad doctoring. I look for solutions.

I recommend a global ban on conflict of interest evidenced by edits specifically that are biased. Foundation level board. Bias is easy to show in scientific topics. See how Yobol, adjkasi, and jmh649 sent me to irrelevant wiki pages to support their claims. Look how they immediately appeared and undid my edits giving irrelevant advise and links. My edits were well intentioned though neive now better getting better. Look how they tried to scare me off from entering new facts (Cochrane) demanding that I prove cochrane is peer reviewed!! Look how they diluted the final texts in several ways, though they monitor maintain the original shown was worse by their own edits, or reverted back, or burried key words and sentences.

PS be nice if this page had spellcheck. I type fast as I speak, and read a page in a slow glance, but fixn spelling takes more time than orig text.32cllou (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

PSS Why not write software to identify conflict of interest in articles. Find articles that are not fixed to new obvious update info though editors constantly monitor, plant changes that would cost an industry $$ and see what happens who makes follow the money changes, find articles with poor structure made that dilute $$ interests, find articles w few editors always there and monitoring, and review their edits for conflict, and find tag team editors like the three above maybe. Got a friend knows how to write that software, used to edit here, might work for free.32cllou (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool (816 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-07-02

Discuss this story

Hey folks, just to be clear: the JSTOR deal is not quite done yet, so please be patient. As I mentioned, we still need a legal review of the particulars, among other important details to wrap up. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a great initiative. In the meantime, editors who need access to journal articles and other scholarly resources can make a request at the resource exchange. GabrielF (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data (1,616 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-07-02

Discuss this story

• Very interesting to me, on several fronts. Glad to know some of the Bodleian's thinking; Wikimedians should be inhaling as much "digital humanities" thinking as they can right now, to reinforce GLAM with the very latest; and I have my own recent metadata hat. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• A great read and an important motivation for flexible data models. I am glad that the use cases that are described here are indeed covered by our data model for Wikidata, and your Op-ed is like the perfect motivating article for why we are using such a flexible model. --Denny Vrandečić (WMDE) (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• An outside expert discussing issues of importance to Wikipedians - this is a very good type of op-ed article to have on Signpost. Please continue this type of article as a series! Smallbones (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Amen! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• It may be prudent to restate RDF as a Peirce triad. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5 (4,306 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-07-02

Discuss this story

The cite bug is one thing, but surely tools that screen-scrape get what they deserve. How many years have people been told to use the API? - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• What is the alternative for font and center? (Better solve it now, that waiting till it gets messy) Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;">foo</span> thus: foo. The word serif tells the browser what type of font to use if it does not have one matching the exact name of the other font(s) preceding it. Similarly, <div style="text-align:center;">bar</div>. Use <span>...</span> to affect only part of the text within a block (such as a signature), and <div>...</div> to affect the text or layout for an entire block (such as a paragraph or table cell). — Richardguk (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hmmm, back to the basics, but I have fixed it. Interesting was that my similar looking signature on ENWP did fit, but that the one on NLWP (Dutch Wikipedia) was to long and cut off. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  As much as I would love to see <font> die in a hole, surely browsers are still going to support it, and it will just cause validation errors. Bawolff (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  If necessary, a bot could go through Wikipedia's old article text, and convert instances of <font> to the appropriate inline styles. <font> could then eventually be taken off the HTML tag whitelist. Alternatively, we could keep <font>, but only as a wikitext pseudo-HTML idiom that would be converted into the appropriate styled <span> markup by the wiki software at wikitext rendering time. However, apart from decorating user signatures, I'm not sure that there are any actual encyclopedic uses for <font>: can anyone think of any? -- The Anome (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  Potentially, an article discussing <font> itself. Powers ^T 17:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation?

Users should note that certain, long-deprecated markup will cease to function, most notably <font> and <center> tags, which are common in user signatures and on user pages, despite not being officially supported by MediaWiki itself.

What's the citation for this? Is there a reason HTMLTidy couldn't fix this (as it does all kinds of bad HTML from user input)? Has someone (a reliable source) said these tags are going to stop working somewhere? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you got me, I was probably exaggerating slightly. Here's how it stands:

• Those tags are not just deprecated under HTML5 but literally don't exist in the doctype
• Thus, to my mind, there's a reasonable chance that browsers in strict mode won't render them.
• However, as you say, Tidy could probably resolve this by fudging them into spans (as The Anome suggests above). Or we could rely on browsers to continue supporting them even in strict mode. Or drop down to quirks mode. But none of them really look like nice options to me.

Hope that helps explain, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)