Plagiarism claim? WHAT?

... I'm a Wikipedia editor and administrator. All that needs to be changed, afaik, to make it not plagiarism is giving proper credit to the Wikipedia article in question. (The proper response to this is not "No, that is not how you deal with a copyright violation" - it's to notice that Wikipedia articles are in the nature of things NOT COPYRIGHTED, you bloody damned idiots. They are released under CC licence. Look up what that is. It gives the conditions for allowed redistribution- not the same as public domain but not the same as in-copyright. Eschiss1 (talk) 02:01, February 11, 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Content Moderator here.
Please don't call us idiots.
--Nurdboy42 (talk) 02:26, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
The ridiculous plagiarism notice is still up. Whose copyright is being violated? Otherwise I stand by my statement. This site has enough articles in need of total overhaul without inventing nonexistent issues such as "plagiarism of Wikipedia". Eschiss1 (talk) 03:14, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement and you're not on Wikipedia, so your statement regarding their terms of service doesn't apply.
Here we have policies, which explicitly prohibit the lazy intellectual malpractice of copying information directly from other sites or books and passing it off as one's own work, as well as those which governor respectful interaction between users, all of which are consistent with Wikia's terms of use, and as such we expect every contributor to follow. Thanks. -- Annabell (talk) 03:16, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
As noted, actually, one is required (as you know, since as you say you've read the WO guidelines) to credit Wikipedia- passing off as etc doesn't pass muster. I grant the gist of the rest. Eschiss1 (talk) 03:28, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully we're on the same page now. The practice of simply crediting the source article is okay when copying word for word on Wikipedia under their specified circumstances; however, per this Database's policies, any material taken from any other site such as Wikipedia needs to be rewritten in your own words and properly referenced with source material citations in order to comply with the guidelines here. -- Annabell (talk) 03:37, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
I hope that Annabell's post above clears this situation. Besides, that plagiarism note is only attribution to Wikipedia editors who have written the text so we can't remove it without violating the license. I agree that using word plagiarizing in this context seems quite stupid because license actually encourages copying text as it would benefit all open content movement. So I actually also disagree with our policy to not use content written under free licenses. But as stated above, your tone in the opening post don't have a place here because it really doesn't encourage civil debate. If you have problems with our policies or attribution to the original writers, please present it with less hostility. If you have been voted to administrator at Wikipedia, you know how to behave. We expect that here also. No name calling. —Mrkermit (talk) 20:21, February 11, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+