Talk:Rare breed

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Montanabw in topic COPYVIO problem!

Thoughts (not deep) edit

Wondering if, given all the other articles out there on rare breeds, if it would make sense to point this article in the direction of being more of an annotated list to all the wiki articles on the topic (not a list of every single rare breed per se, but a list of the other articles on various aspects of rare breeds...). Just a thought. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

COPYVIO problem! edit

The lede is copied almost verbatim from identical with the Google Books blurb of the book Rare Breeds: Unusual Farm Animals from Around the World, which goes as follows:

"A rare breed is defined as a breed of livestock that is not common in modern agriculture, though it may have been in the past. Various national and international organizations, such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy, and the Rare Breeds Survival Trust of the United Kingdom, each define the exact parameters by which a breed may be defined as rare, and many breeds that qualify only have a few thousand or even a few hundred breeding individuals remaining in the world. These organizations promote conservation of heritage livestock for their unique traits, which may contribute to genetic diversity among animals important to human food supplies and economies, as well as to general biodiversity and improvements in animal husbandry."

Needless to say, this is This may be a copyright violation. I will try to change some formulations and add the proper reference, but I might have to leave my desk soon, so I'm leaving this message for all to see. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Well spotted, although I wonder if the copyright violation works the other way? The book in question was apparently first published in 2010 (by Chartwell Books), and the lead was added to the article (by an admin no less) on 15 January 2010. Did Google Books copy Wikipedia? Moswento talky 10:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Hmm, good point. In a world in which some entire books are based on Wikipedia, it is indeed possible that a website's editors used WP to compose a blurb. Unfortunately, Google Books only gives a snippet of that book and I'm nowhere near a library, so I can't determine what the physical book says. Would I be wrong to suggest we play it safe and reword the lede to avoid confusion? Madalibi (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Madalibi: Playing it safe sounds like a good approach. At the very least, we avoid the issue coming up again in the future. Moswento talky 12:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have contacted the admin who added the text in question to see what he thinks. Thanks for digging into the article history to clarify the issue! Madalibi (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Walling cited to Storey, which is a RS. So, if the book above is not plagiarizing wiki (and I think it is, given the poor reviews and comments on sloppy work) then it's plagiarizing Storey: http://books.google.com/books?id=4XBjt9ScvBAC
Yes, I cited to Storey and the content is original. I've actually seen the book you're linking to on Amazon. It was published after I wrote the text in the lede (I wrote it in January 2010 according to the revision history, and the book was published in May several months later). The book also reuses a ton of Wikipedia/Commons photos of rare breeds. I'm not surprised he reused our content without citing. Steven Walling • talk 23:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Like Once again, we are ahead of the curve (now, if someone makes a book out of wikipedia articles, are they engaging in paid editing? Hmmm...) Montanabw(talk) 18:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Steven Walling: Thank you for commenting and for helping with the article! Does Wikipedia ever sue authors and publishers for such copyright infringements, or would this be too much hassle? In any case, your comment clarifies everything. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm not Steven, but I think the problem with the free license is that people can steal anything and make money off of it, so long as they credit wikipedia...  :-P Montanabw(talk) 18:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply