How concerned should we be when someone is paid for plagiarising our text?

[George Swan]

I read an old thread, and decided to start a new thread.  The old thread concerned the wiki encyclopedia improved by the Unification Church.  And concerns were expressed about projects like that hiring authors to improve material originally from volunteer projects. 

If anything, this is a sound and very loud argument for why releasing things under wide-open free-content licenses may not be such a good idea after all--it is an argument for creating one's own license that would merge free with some control over re-use (e.g., those who build upon it must adhere to the neutrality policy). What if this "New World Encyclopedia" were based upon Citizendium?

...By the way, Commons licenses force the re-user to give credits in a way that does not suggest that the original author  is endorsing  the new version. This seems to be an important advantage over GFDL for an "authoritative" encyclopedia project...

The creative commons and gnu free document liscense allow others to re-use material I write -- under certain conditions.

When reading articles on topics I follow I have come across two instances when someone has incorporated material I contributed to the wikipedia, without crediting me. 

In another thread, when we were discussing whether to port articles from the wikipedia, whether to start from scratch, or whether to only port material we were the original author of.  The advice I got there was that corrections to spelling or grammar didn't count as an intellectual contribution, and didn't have to be credited.  But that anything sentence length or longer did count as an intellectual contribution, and should be attributed.

One plagiarized passage was three or four sentences long.  The more recent one was two or three paragraphs, about 150 words.

I wasn't planning to do anything about it. 

Does allowing minor plagiarism erode the value of our free liscenses?  Maybe I should have done something about it? 

By not challenging even minor plagiarism do we risk being accused of plagiarism myself, if we re-use these passages we were the original authors of?

Yes, in both instances, I believe the plagiarists were paid cash money for the material they published as if it were there own.

[Aleta Curry]

I don't have enough information.

"when someone has incorporated material I contributed to the wikipedia, without crediting me."

They don't have to credit you.  They may have to credit wikipedia.

"But that anything sentence length or longer did count as an intellectual contribution, and should be attributed."

People use that rough guideline for CZ to save us problems.  But there are are plenty of situations in which you can use longer quotes without permission.  You should credit the author, of course.  But when something is common knowledge, or when something is de minimus, one doesn't have to.

The Battle of Hastings took place in 1066.  The Norman French, led by William the Conqueror, later William I, whupped Harold's donkey.  Harold was killed by an arrow through his eye.

No credit due to anyone.

"By not challenging even minor plagiarism do we risk being accused of plagiarism myself, if we re-use these passages we were the original authors of?"

Well, yes, someone could accuse you.  Could they convict you?  How? 

My advice would be to screen print and save copies of the original WP version 'this version last edited by George Swann on date' and the history pages.

"One plagiarized passage was three or four sentences long.  The more recent one was two or three paragraphs, about 150 words.

I wasn't planning to do anything about it.  "

I'm not surprised.  You'd have to sue; and I wouldn't think it would be worth it to start a lawsuit over three or four sentences, unless maybe it was a multi-million dollar jingle or something.

"Yes, in both instances, I believe the plagiarists were paid cash money for the material they published as if it were there own."

They were paid cash money for three or four sentences?

[George Swan]

• "when someone has incorporated material I contributed to the wikipedia, without crediting me."
• "But that anything sentence length or longer did count as an intellectual contribution, and should be attributed."
• "By not challenging even minor plagiarism do we risk being accused of plagiarism myself, if we re-use these passages we were the original authors of?"

They don't have to credit you.  They may have to credit wikipedia.

People use that rough guideline for CZ to save us problems.  But there are are plenty of situations in which you can use longer quotes without permission.  You should credit the author, of course.  But when something is common knowledge, or when something is de minimus, one doesn't have to.

The Battle of Hastings took place in 1066.  The Norman French, led by William the Conqueror, later William I, whupped Harold's donkey.  Harold was killed by an arrow through his eye.

No credit due to anyone.

Really?  My understanding is that there is a key difference between plagiarizing -- directly quoting without attribution -- and paraphrasing.  I could quote your passage about the Battle of Hastings with absolutely no understanding of what it means.  I could copy it without knowing who William was, who Harold was, who the Norman French were, where Hasting was, when 1066 was, or even what a battle was.

We have to understand a passage to paraphrase it.  When people paraphrase passages they don't really understand, it shows. 

Are you familiar with the US Supreme Court's ruling in Feith v. Rural?  It is interesting.  For brevity I will talk about it in a followup comment.

I don't care if the plagiarists credit the wikipedia instead of crediting me personally.    I believe that us intellectual content creators retain important rights under free liscenses, like the Gnu Free Document Liscense, and, if I am not mistaken, the creative commons liscenses.  And, technically, I believe it is the rights we personally retain that are violated when material we contribute is plagiarized, not the wikipedia's or citizendium's.

Who were the plagiarists, and what did they plagiarize?  For brevity I will put that in a followup comment.

• part 2

[George Swan]

They were paid cash money for three or four sentences?

Who were the plagiarists, and what did they plagiarize?  For brevity I will put that in a followup comment.

Last month charges were (temporarily) dropped against five Guantanamo captives:
Noor Uthman Mohammed; Binyam Mohammed al-Habashi; Ghassan Abdallah Ghazi Al Shirbi; Jabran Said bin Al Qahtani; Sufyiam Barhoumi.

On October 21st the Salem news published an article entitled: Government Dismisses Charges Against Five Guantanamo Detainees
The last seven paragraphs concern Ghassan Abdallah Ghazi Al Shirbi, Jabran Said bin Al Qahtani, Sufyiam Barhoumi.

Two of the paragraphs state: "According to Wikipedia", and "Wikipedia states".  But they don't mark the material that follows as a direct quote.  And they certainly don't indicate two of the other paragraphs were direct quotes.  Two other paragraphs were contain no new material, but some clauses and paragraph breaks, were removed, slightly shortening the material.

The final paragraph is very short.  It states: "Little data was available on Sufyiam Barhoumi."  Actually, as much information was available about him as any of the men.  But the Salem News reporter didn't find the wikipedia article on Sufyiam Barhoumi, because he or she spelled his name wrong.

Okay.  I looked into it a bit more.  They didn't just cut and paste from the wikipedia.

Half or more of the material in the section devoted to Binyam Mohamed is cut and paste from an article by Andy Worthington, the author of "The Guantanamo Files".  After he published his book he published web updates.  Salem quoted from a web update.

The material on Noor-Uthman-Mohamed is cut and paste from human rights watch.  Salem mention HRW, but does not indicate the rest of the material was cut and paste from their site.

Several passages about Susan Crawford's role are cut and paste from an article Carol Rosenberg published in the Miami Herald, without any attribution at all.

So close to half of this article was cut and paste from the wikipedia, and most of the rest was cut and paste as well.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I suppose I look forward to CZ being far more worth plagiarizing than the Other Place. 

Seriously, even WP is looking at avoiding "orphaned" articles. If you look at our ongoing discussion CZ Talk: Usability, you'll see various approaches being discussed that go far beyond simple orphaning. We obviously can't control what a newspaper takes from a Wiki. My goal, however, is that if they at least mention something is from CZ, we have a sufficiently high degree of cross-linking that will make it harder to believe things taken out of context.

[Aleta Curry]

Hmm...I'm not really understanding all this.

As to this from George:  "Really?  My understanding is that there is a key difference between plagiarizing -- directly quoting without attribution -- and paraphrasing. "

No, paraphrasing is still plagiarism--at least it was back when I was in school.

My point regarding The Battle of Hastings was that it has been written about so much that to merely quote a few facts means you would *have* to use some language that had been used by *someone* at some point.  If you picked up a paragraph or two, however, and used them without attribution, naturally you'd still be in trouble.  The best thing of course is always to paraphrase about well-known facts.  That's not the same thing as saying you can paraphrase anything and it's fine.

Two of the paragraphs state: "According to Wikipedia", and "Wikipedia states".  But they don't mark the material that follows as a direct quote.  And they certainly don't indicate two of the other paragraphs were direct quotes. [

Well, as I'm sure you know, if they wrote According to Wikipedia, the moon is made of green cheese. that's fine, they don't need quotes.  That is, they paraphrased and attributed, which is perfectly correct.

Alternatively, they could write Wikipedia states:  "the moon is composed entirely of green cheese".  That takes inverted commas because it's a direct quote.

And, technically, I believe it is the rights we personally retain that are violated when material we contribute is plagiarized, not the wikipedia's or citizendium's.

I'm not entirely sure that's true, because although you retain rights, you've also turned over the rights in the same material to WP or CZ.  You may have a case for saying your rights are violated as well, but what's your point?  What are you trying to get out of this?

I seem to be weighing in on something with a deeper subtext, of which I am ignorant.  Certainly, George, if you need "real" advice, you should check with an Intellectual Property specialist.

[George Swan]

Hmm...I'm not really understanding all this.

I seem to be weighing in on something with a deeper subtext, of which I am ignorant...

Sorry, I meant to refer you to a note I left in an earlier thread, where I offered the story of a guy who suffered at the hands of an automated plagiarism detection program.  His obscure work was considered important enough that he was quoted in less obscure journals.  Those papers that quoted him in the less obscure journals were in the database of the automated plagiarism detection program.  But his original papers weren't.  A decade or more later when he quoted his older work the plagiarism detection software plagiarism detection trigger was activated. 

Because his work had been quoted, and those quotes were in papers by other people, the detection program thought those other people were the original authors of what had always been his work. 

For all we know, in ten years, someone might track all the blogs, all the citizendium contributions, and the newsgroup entries of everyone.  Personnel directors, for instance, might tell some plagiarism detection program to analyze our posts.  At some level of plagiarism those plagiarism detectors could finger us as the plagiarists -- not the actual plagiarists.  And so, for instance, we could end up not being hired, without ever learning why.

[Aleta Curry]

I see.

I would think that in submitting writing samples one would also submit dates originally published and in what media.  I would also think that prospective employers would say hmmm...George says he wrote this in 1999 for The Specialist Guide to Widgets and here's the exact same text published on Wikipedia in 2000 and in 2007 at Jelloman J's Big Blog--what gives? 

Presumably, one's prospective employers can work out chronological dates and the difference between a specialist journal, WP and JJ's Big Blog.  One would also think that one act of alleged plagiarism vs. many or even just a few obviously bona fide sources would make 'em think.  If not, I would suggest that one would not want to work for such people anyway, but it's cold comfort, I know.

Again, if you're worried, get some legal advice.

[George Swan]

Hmm...I'm not really understanding all this...

No, paraphrasing is still plagiarism--at least it was back when I was in school...

Well, as I'm sure you know, if they wrote According to Wikipedia, the moon is made of green cheese. that's fine, they don't need quotes.  That is, they paraphrased and attributed, which is perfectly correct.

As to whether paraphrasing is plagiarism, I think I will start a new thread on Feist v. Rural, where I will share what I think I learned about how US copyright law regards the copyright of facts, and their representation.  In 25 words under US copyright law:

• no one can copyright a fact. 
• one can copyright how one represents facts, if there was a "creative spark" involved.  And the yardstick for "creative spark" is low.

Are you from Australia Aleta?  Under Australian law, the situation is 180 degrees reversed.  Australia has a "sweat of the brow" interpretation of copyright. 

So, if I am correct, paraphrasing is in.  As a courtesy, one should generally say who one is paraphrasing.  And it is particularly important on serious projects, like this.  But I do not believe there is a legal penalty for failing to state one knows one is paraphrasing another source.

Your passage about 1066, if it is really true that any randomly composed short passage about it will innocently duplicate some earlier expression -- well, I would regard that as a pathological case.