Thread: The Wiki - How to Proceed?

I wanted to start this thread in order to discuss, in light of recent plagiarism and attribution issues, how we should proceed with the Wiki, and come up with a general strategy for its development and implementation.

I think we can and do all agree on the Wiki's purpose, although I do think it needs to be made clear that just because you may place something on the Wiki it does not mean it will stay in that same state for all eternity. It may even have its fundamental message substantially changed as time progresses. Of course, that depends on what you put up on the Wiki.

In any event, there are two issues that I see cropping up from a plagiarism point of view.

1. First is the issue we have already bumped into: taking someone's post and wikifying it. Let's call this one Macro Plagiarism. This is fairly easy to spot and also fairly easy to remedy from a plagiarism perspective. Simply ask permission from the poster to turn it into a wiki entry, give attribution to the poster in the wiki entry itself (as is already done - see existing wiki entries for examples of this), and add a link in the wiki entry to the thread in the forum.

Better still is to ask the original poster to add their post to the wiki themselves, in my opinion. Perhaps the mods of each forum could play a role here - a PM from the forum mod saying "great post, hows about adding it to the wiki" might carry more weight with people than a similar message from an ordinary member.

2. Second, and more insidious (and prevalent), is the issue of plagiarism (or non-attribution) of ideas, concepts, expressions, words or phrases etc within the post or wiki entry itself. Let's call this one Micro Plagiarism. This can occur numerous times within a single post or wiki entry where the poster utilises ideas that are not their own. I have noted over the years that we have been fairly unconcerned with this one within the forum itself.

However, given that plagiarism has raised its ugly head with regards the wiki, I feel this second type needs to be discussed and addressed also. There are standard procedures and rules utilised within the academic and scholarly world to deal with this kind of plagiarism. My suggestion is that we adopt those rules for the wiki entries - I say this because these rules have been developed over centuries to placate the most insecure and egotistical group of people in society: academics . This will add extra work to constructing a wiki entry, but it will certainly avoid any accusations of plagiarism into the future.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. The purpose of this thread is to add to those thoughts, or discuss them, or whatever, and hopefully (eventually) come up with some practical guidelines regarding how to proceed with the wiki with a fairly bullet-proof plagiarism-avoidance strategy.

James.

I have no problem with applying the academic rules of plagiarism to the wiki. Though I may accidentally break them from time to time hopefully everyone who works the wiki will keep an eye out for traceable infractions

The recent problems regarding the (baseless) accusation of plagiarism towards BeBerlin is indeed a good trigger to discuss this item.

Whatever gets posted on SRP is public information and can go into the wiki.
Attribution is nice, and I think this is taken care of for the stuff that gets moved into the wiki.

For stuff that comes from outside, it depends on where it comes from.
The article that was the source of the late controverse was posted originally on SRP (I was told). It got lost in the crash, so BeBerlin got a copy from the B&B wiki.
The wiki license from B&B explicitly allows this, so there was no legal problem.

Whenever in doubt, it is perhaps best to start a new thread here to talk about it and see is someone can give a clear answer.

It might be a good idea to check these out:

Wikipedia:Copyrights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://creativecommons.org/international/us/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/

That 3rd one states:

You are free:

* to Share — to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
*

Under the following conditions:

*

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Attribute this work:
What does "Attribute this work" mean?
The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as well.

*

Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
*

No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.
* Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
* Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.