See User:Colin/A large scale student assignment – what could possibly go wrong? and User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, Part I for the 2011 class
Since Joordens won't release the class list or article list (unlike in 2011), in order to analyse the student work, we have to spot the students. Fortunately they are remarkably easy to spot. Their assignment (if like 2011) is to add two facts to two articles, with citations.
I have identified 410 students who edited 252 articles as part of this class. The process of detection isn't perfect. There will be some students here who aren't part of this class but are almost certainly part of someone's class (because, in general, newbies don't turn up on psychology articles to add a fact citing a student textbook). But I think that nearly all of them are part of Joordens' class. There will also be others I haven't found or chose not to list because I wasn't sure. In 2011, when we had an incomplete list of students, a third of the students only edited one article and three-quarters of the articles were edited by only one student. So there's likely to be a large number of students undetected by this spider-crawl technique. Although the class has 1700 students, far fewer than that actually edited in 2011. In 2013, the proportion editing seems to be a lot higher. My guess is between 200 and 400 more students unlisted and perhaps 300 articles unlisted.
I'm going through the edits of the above alphabetical student list looking for ones where the source is the web or a freely available online journal. I'll list the edit here and comment on plagiarism (either direct copy/paste or close paraphrasing).
Update: I don't see much point in continuing this. Nearly all of the edits where I can examine the source are plagiarised. Sometimes blatant copy/paste, sometimes the punctuation and conjunctions are changed, sometimes a little more rework. But still close paraphrasing without in-text attribution. On the rare exception when the student really does attempt to write in their own words, they nearly always screw up. Which is hardly surprising since they don't really understand their subject yet. These are 1st-year undergrads doing an "Introduction to" class in a subject most of them aren't planning to qualify in. Colin° Talk 16:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
For the analysis, I'm looking at each edit and judging its qualities. Does the sentence make sense? Does it fit in this location in the article or even in the article? How good is the citation? Is the text a copy vio (copy paste portions (clauses) into Google is the easiest way to spot this, particularly if the prose is well written) -- Google will find journal text even if behind a paywall. Then look at the article history since and see if the edit was retained. If not, who removed it and why? Diffs help for the add/remove but aren't required.
This list is fairly stable and other volunteers could assess these students one at a time. Put your name against a bunch of students to indicate you are going to review them.
NOTE: If the "Plagiarism/Copyvio found" column is empty, that means the reviewer didn't check or didn't have access to the source.
User | Comment | # Edits | Duration | Reviewer | Plagiarism/Copyvio found? | Useful material added? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
116ebestbus ( talk · contribs) | No concerns | 2 | 1 minute | Doc James | ||
Ab 1234 ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: First edit
[1] content already present. Primary research study. Reverted by next editor. Second edit is good.
[2] Colin: Second edit is too close to source. Article: Dietary restrictions are not recommended for young children; instead children should be encouraged to engage in high energy activity, minimize low energy activity and develop healthy eating habits. Source: Diet restriction is not recommended in very young children...Encourage overweight children to expand high energy activity, minimize low energy activity (screen watching), and develop healthful eating habits. |
3 | 19 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Adhiyaak ( talk · contribs) | First edit adds content in the wrong spot [3] Second edits ref is to the inside net [4] | 2 | 13 minutes | Doc James | ||
Abraham.lee3 ( talk · contribs) | First edit okay-ish [5] Ref poorly formatted. Second edit not to bad. Paraphrasing is a little difficult to figure out. [6] | 4 (2) | 1 day 2 hours (6 1/2 hours) | Doc James | ||
Ageofagua8 ( talk · contribs) | Edits appears okay [7] | 7 (6) | 1 hours 5 minutes (41 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Aldecoar ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: Okay Colin Copy/paste Article: Nevertheless, adolescence period is one of multiple transitions, involving education, training, employment and unemployment, as well as transitions from one living circumstance to another. Source: Today, however, writers are more likely to describe [adolescence] as one of multiple transitions, involving education, training, employment and unemployment, as well as transitions from one living circumstance to another. |
1 | 0 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Ap0305 ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: Looks okay Colin: Key phrases copied, rewording changes meaning (e.g. the "probably" is dropped). Article: Another developmental factor for childhood/infant obesity may be due to maternal hyperglycemia, which can lead to increased glucose transport across the placenta. The increased glucose transport will cause an increased insulin secretion by the fetal pancreas which in turn will result in an increase in both the number and content of fat cells. Source: The second proposed developmental pathway to [childhood] obesity...Maternal hyperglycemia leads to increased glucose transport across the placenta and in turn to increased insulin secretion by the fetal pancreas. Insulin is adipogenic in late fetal and infant life and probably increases both fat cell number and content. |
7 | 1 day 23 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Ashleebireley ( talk · contribs) | (Not sure about this one} Ref and wording inappropriate [8] | 6 | 1 hour 41 minutes | Doc James | ||
Anuj Kapahi ( talk · contribs) | Ref to text but no page number [9] Same issue with second edit however the wording is also barely intelligible [10] Reverted | 2 | 10 minutes | Doc James | ||
Babbarsu ( talk · contribs) | Inappropriate wording for an encyclopedia [11] and Marie Claire is not a suitable ref. Content is wrong. Second edit is unreffed [12] | 2 | 17 minutes | Doc James | ||
Bandit3 ( talk · contribs) | User adding content to disambig [13] Wording is poor. Second edit uses a blog as a ref and of course humans are animals [14] | 7 | 21 minutes | Doc James | ||
Batman766 ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: No ref in the edits
[15]
[16] Colin: Likely plagiarism. The five factors added to Decision making are listed here. Really should be attributed in-text. |
2 | 7 minutes | Doc James | LIKELY | |
Buttburh ( talk · contribs) | Ref to inside net [17] | 2 | 17 minutes | Doc James | ||
B zara ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: May be okay
[18] Colin: Plagiarism Article: Near the end of his life, he attended Association for Humanistic Psychology’s founding meeting in 1963 where he declined nomination as its president, arguing that the new organization should develop an intellectual movement without a leader which resulted in useful useful strategy during the field’s early years. Source: Maslow was at the Association for Humanistic Psychology's founding meeting in 1963. He declined nomination as its president, arguing that the new organisation should develop an intellectual movement without a leader. This formed a useful strategy during the field's early years" |
1 | 0 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Butterfly4444 ( talk · contribs) | First edit [19] what was added is not really what the source says. Next two edits reverted as vague / meaningless [20] | 4 | 20 hours | Doc James | ||
BWikiUser ( talk · contribs) | Edit very hard to understand and ref to inside net [21] Next statement is a little strange and to the inside net but some extra details so could probably make it out [22] | 2 | 39 minutes | Doc James | ||
Caitlin7211 ( talk · contribs) | A strange statement [23] | 1 (2) | 0 minutes (1 hour 16 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Changlo2 ( talk · contribs) | No sure how this relates to prognosis [24] Second edit not to bad [25] | 4 | 6 hours 20 minutes | Doc James | ||
Chrikatu 20 ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: Edits okay
[26] Colin: Good attempt to summaries a page of information into a few sentences. Makes one possible mistake in that severity of traumatic experience isn't related to duration of amnesia but to incidences, according to the source. This would have been caught if the edit was reviewed when marked. |
2 | 17 hours | Doc James | NO | |
Doctorkazooka ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: Edits okay Colin: The addition uses in-text attribution for close-paraphrased text. However, the reader doesn't know who "Ghafoor" is and has no reason to care. There is no excuse for us not putting this into our own words. |
3 (2) | 18 minutes (47 minutes) | Doc James | NO | |
Djp1717 ( talk · contribs) | Okay | 5 (2) | 9 minutes (24 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Egglayingmonkey ( talk · contribs) | A 1935 book as ref? [27] No ref in second [28] | 2 | 1 day 6 hours 10 minutes | Doc James | ||
Forozan n ( talk · contribs) | Students first edit is PLAGIARISM [29] of [30] Reverted as such. Prolonged QT is NOT a cause of anorexia [31] | 2 (5) | 9 minutes (26 minutes) | Doc James | YES | |
Habibyum ( talk · contribs) | First edit is about mice and ref is to a newpaper [32] Other edits could use better refs. | 3 (3) | 16 hours | Doc James | ||
Hamhamchan ( talk · contribs) | Editor reverted own edit | 2 | 1 minute | Doc James | ||
Hhhdltnqls ( talk · contribs) | Source is primary rather than secondary [33] Okay-ish. Second edit ref is poor [34] | 2 | 24 minutes | Doc James | ||
Hologgraz ( talk · contribs) | Primary source as ref [35] [36] | 2 | 1 hours 38 minutes | Doc James | ||
IanSu ( talk · contribs) | Repeated addition of unsourced content [37] reverted. Other is minor wording [38] | 9 | 1 day 23 hours | Doc James | ||
Ijoyfulness ( talk · contribs) | Changed understandable to not understandable text [39]. Changed correct numbers to incorrect numbers [40] Ie VANDALISM | 2 | 8 minutes | Doc James | ||
Jasvinei ( talk · contribs) | Ref good. Wording a little hard to understand [41] | 1 | 0 minutes | Doc James | ||
Jathiban ( talk · contribs) | Okay minor edits | 3 | 11 minutes | Doc James | ||
Jayykub13 ( talk · contribs) | First edit unreffed [42] second edit broke formatting and ref to inside net [43] To top it off it is PLAGIARISM from [44] | 2 | 10 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Jenneilson ( talk · contribs) | In this edit [45] they state 5 year olds when paper is about grade 5 students. Study mentions "overweight" however student confused with "obesity". Also primary source Crevix removed | 5 | 13 minutes | Doc James | ||
Jessy3149 ( talk · contribs) | Reworded a correlation as a cause [46] Otherwise appears okay. Used a review article. | 7 | 26 minutes | Doc James | ||
JCLU8694 ( talk · contribs) | Added content to wrong spot in this edit [47] Appears to be from here [48] | 3 (5) | 3 hours (2 1/2) | |||
Jhwithsh ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added useful link to "See also" section. (2) Added duplicate link to "See also" section. Deleted by Flyer22. |
2 | 6 minutes | Anthonyhcole | (1) Yes (2) No | |
Jp271 ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added duplicate information using slang ("puke") and non-MEDRS source.
Reverted by Arctic Kangaroo. (2) Added wrong information ("Childhood obesity is the cause of not getting enough physical activity...") and duplicate information. Reverted by Cresix. |
2 | 1 hour 33 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | |
J.hermans9 ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added mostly duplicate information, citing intranet link. Anthonyhcole
deleted 29 words, retained one. (2)
Added good content, 1952 source. Persists. |
3 (3) | 13 minutes (36 minutes) | Anthonyhcole | Yes | |
Karandeep39 ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added good, relevant unsourced copy-paste plagiarism from
anxietycentre.com (2) Added serious misinterpretation of the findings of a single double blind trial. Reverted by Icarus of old. |
3 | 4 hours 20 minutes | Anthonyhcole | Yes | No |
Kangaroo91 ( talk · contribs) |
[49] Unfathomable meaning. Citing 1939 book. Adding article content to a
disambiguation page.
Reverted by
User:Johnmperry after 34 hours. Added unfathomable text to Attribution (psychology). Reverted by Colin. Added more unthathomable text to Motivated forgetting. Reverted by Anthonyhcole. |
4 | 6 days | Anthonyhcole/Colin | No | |
Killinan ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added 2 sentences about a small (classic) 34 year-old prospective study. Good paraphrasing, good expression, relevant. (I checked against current sources that the info' is still current.) Persists. (2) Added irrelevant non sequitur to lede. Deleted by Looie496 |
3 | 42 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | (1) Yes (2) No |
Kookiemonstur ( talk · contribs) |
Added useful content with a well-formatted (classic, seminal 1967) citation. Expression needs clean-up. Reverted by Icarus of old. |
1 | 0 minutes | Anthonyhcole | Yes | |
Lanchenshenghui ( talk · contribs) |
Added valueless verbiage to lede citing 1954 book, no page number. Rejected by Jeremy.Hebert. |
1 | 0 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | |
Leshawnantoine ( talk · contribs) |
Added redundant definition of the topic. Deleted by Anthonyhcole Added irrelevant factoid to a disambiguation page. Deleted by Johnmperry |
2 | 35 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | |
LulzGoat ( talk · contribs) | Looks fine to me.(T) Me too. (A) Added two apposite facts with good sources and good cites. | 2 | 19 minutes | Tryptofish Anthonyhcole |
No | Yes |
Marsh180 ( talk · contribs) |
Added a section to
Ablative brain surgery on epilepsy. This had synthesis of sources, plagiarism and incorrect facts. Removed by Colin. Added a source to Bulimia nervosa but it wasn't a neutral source and was removed by Dawnseeker2000. |
3 | 1 day 5 hours | Colin | YES | |
Mistry123 ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added irrelevant content to a disambiguation page. Deleted by Wtmitchell (2) Added meaningless verbiage, citing 800 page textbook with no page number. |
2 | 26 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | |
Mr.wonderful234 ( talk · contribs) | Added content addressing "men and women" to article about adolescents with useless citations. Persists. | 1 | 0 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | |
MustafaKanchwala ( talk · contribs) |
Added a fact on epilepsy to the
epileptic seizure article. Sourced to intranet so useless cite. Added a section "Predicting Epileptic Seizures". The short paragraph is, apart from the first few words, a direct copy-paste of the abstract of
PMID
12849542, though again the source give is an intranet address.
Removed by Fvasconcellos as a copyvio. Added a fact to Childhood obesity that is in the wrong place (not a long-term health effect) and already covered in the right place. Removed by LovaFalk. |
2 | 24 minutes | Colin | YES | |
MSvarichKnights ( talk · contribs) | First edit not sure if should be here [50] Not sure what this really means [51] | 2 (3) | 17 minutes (1 hour 9 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Nataliexhochoy ( talk · contribs) | First edits I am having difficulty with [52] Second edit adds errors [53] | 4 | 2 hours 15 minutes | Doc James | ||
NatashaSav ( talk · contribs) | Minor edits [54] [55] | 3 | 19 minutes | Doc James | ||
Nicsch8 ( talk · contribs) | First edit [56] poorly worded. Second edit unreffed [57] | 5 (2) | 23 minutes (45 minutes) | Doc James | ||
N.bakr ( talk · contribs) | Editor put content in the wrong spot [58] It was also poorly referenced. Reverted by Cresix. Second edit [59] involves some close paraphrasing of the source [60] and the ref is poorly formatted. | 3 | 4 hours 55 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Parisbesosxo ( talk · contribs) | Users first edit [61] based on a primary study of 36 people [62] and put in the wrong part of the article. Second addition also poorly sourced [63] | 4 | 22 minutes | Doc James | ||
Pinemelon ( talk · contribs) | First edit ref to inside net [64] Second edit no ref [65] | 3 | 22 minutes | Doc James | ||
Prabanan ( talk · contribs) | First edit to a disambig page [66] with no ref and reverted by CluBot (good bot). User readded [67], was reverted and readded a third time with a ref. Next edit [68] uses page number 13.7 and writing style is strange. Ref does not function. No one fixes. | 4 (4) | 15 minutes (27 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Psy02-2013 ( talk · contribs) | First edit COPY AND PASTE [69] ref poor quality and reverted. Second edit same [70] but not reverted. | 2 | 22 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
PSYCHOLOGYA0ONE ( talk · contribs) | Added a cohort study [71] edit removed. Second edit [72] non encyclopedic tone. Ref is to the companies website. | 3 | 17 minutes | |||
Pwellpeng ( talk · contribs) | First edit okay [73] Second edit minor formatting issues [74] | 4 | 41 minutes | Doc James | ||
Ramen-18 ( talk · contribs) | First edit [75] minor formatting issues. Second edit same | 2 | 1 hour 25 minutes | Doc James | ||
Rongyiji ( talk · contribs) | User placed content on a disambig page [76] No ref provided. User tried second time. Edits reverted. | 4 | 2 hours 44 minutes | Doc James | ||
Rosita3310 ( talk · contribs) | Student reverted own first edit. Second edit appears okay [77] | 3 | 43 minutes | Doc James | ||
Roseahmed ( talk · contribs) | First edit does not really make sense [78] link to inside net but could probably figure it out. Next edit [79] is PLAGIARISM from the source in question [80] Still in article. Third edit [81] does not make much sense and removed in next edit. | 5 (6) | 21 minutes (8 days) | Doc James | YES | |
Rosesandchocolate ( talk · contribs) | First edit [82] ref to inside next. Second edit contains link to inside net [83] | 2 | 52 minutes | Doc James | ||
SaganaJ88 ( talk · contribs) | Edit adds content already in the article and poorly formatted breaking the page in question [84]. Reverted in next edit by Flyer22 | 1 | 0 minutes | Doc James | ||
Smelendez93 ( talk · contribs)Thekratoskilla | Two edits okay [85] [86]. Both use popular press and add details about people. | 2 (3) | 3 hours 23 minutes (5 hours 57 minutes) | Doc James | NO | YES |
Snowyfebsak ( talk · contribs) | First edit [87] links to inside net but enough info to figure it out. Second edit ref to inside net [88] but enough data. User tried again with better results [89] | 3 (2) | 33 minutes | Doc James | ||
Swayne pencil ( talk · contribs) | First edit repeats the same thing twice. Is already stated in the article and uses a newpaper as a ref. [90]. Reverted in next edit. Second edit person added content in a middle of a reference [91] and sentence is difficult to understand. I reverted | 5 | 28 minutes | Doc James | ||
Slimfaiz ( talk · contribs) | First edit links to inside net and content in the wrong spot. [92] Second ref to inside net [93] | 2 | 29 minutes | Doc James | ||
Student944 ( talk · contribs) | First edit okay [94]. Second edit contanis a properly formatted reference [95] | 2 | 1 day 8 hours | Doc James | ||
S.digiallo ( talk · contribs) | Ref is good but does not appear to support the content added [96]. Was removed in next edit as placed in an inappropriate spot. Second edit is unclear [97] | 4 | 14 minutes | Doc James | ||
TessXu ( talk · contribs) | In first edit user COPY AND PASTED from [98] but did not change the ref to the new source [99] First edit is PLAGARISM even if source is public domain. Second edit is PLAGIARISM [100] with content copied from [101] | 6 | 3 hours | Doc James/Colin | YES | |
Tonykaka ( talk · contribs) | First edit not to bad [102]. It is primary research though and poorly formatted. Second edit was a COPY AND PASTE [103] from [104] Ref given but poorly formatted. | 3 | 55 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Twtpoppy ( talk · contribs) |
Added a sentence to
Epileptic seizure that was impenetrable nonsense. The citation was good.
Removed by Colin. Added a sentence to Self-control theory of crime. The sentence repeats some of what is already covered. Was lifted copy-paste from the source. Removed by Colin. |
2 | 91 minutes | Colin | YES | |
Unigirl02 ( talk · contribs) | First edits [105] link to inside net. Removed in next edit. Second edit [106] uses primary research to support poor written content. As article was getting such a high number of poor quality edits from different editors related to this class it was semi protected by User:Nikkimaria | 6 | 43 minutes | Doc James | ||
Vaal77 ( talk · contribs) | Added content that was already in the article with a link to the U of T inside net [107] Edit reject by User:Icarus of old. Second edit may be [108] Still linked to inside net and ref not properly formatted. Ref may be the wrong paper. | 4 | 9 hours | Doc James | ||
Vivian155 ( talk · contribs) | This edit [109] rejected as a random comment. The next edit [110] doesn't really say much. | 2 | 13 minutes | Doc James | ||
Wiki753 ( talk · contribs) | This edit [111] more or less adds duplication of the sentence above it. Reverted by next editor. Second edit appears okay [112]. Not sure if already covered. | 2 (3) | 11 minutes (15 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Xxamyvvu ( talk · contribs) | First edit very poorly formatted [113] and removed. Second was also very poorly formatted and was placed in the middle of another sentence which two other editors fixed. [114] | 3 | 18 minutes | Doc James | ||
Yekaiut ( talk · contribs) | First edit placed content in wrong spot at end of article [115]. Some links to inside net used. Missing page numbers for books. Removed in next edit as duplicated what the article already said. Second edit also placed at end of article. Written in inappropriate tone. [116] PLAGIARIZED from here [117] Removed in next edit. | 2 | 31 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
YWikiUser ( talk · contribs) | First edit uses link to U of T inside net [118] As did the second edit [119] | 2 | 32 minutes | Doc James | ||
ZahedahS ( talk · contribs) |
Added another cause of seizures (cancer patients). Sourced to intranet with useless cite. Language is childish. Fact already present in the article.
Removed by Fvasconcellos. Added a fact to Coping (psychology) that reads like the blurb off a self-help book and inappropriate for a serious psychology article. Removed by Colin. |
2 (3) | 16 minutes (61 minutes) | Colin |
I've separated these out so my assessments don't edit conflict with other edits; I suggest other editors consider doing the same. I'll move these back up when done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
User | Comment | # Edits | Duration | Reviewer | Plagiarism or copyvio or close paraphrase found? | Useful material added? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Petersie879 ( talk · contribs) | Added a sentence to aphasia taken directly from "February 20, 1992. Damasio A.R. N Engl J Med 1992; 326:531-539"; I removed it as copyvio. Also made a harmless minor edit to the same article. Added but then immediately removed a sentence from cognitive dissonance; then made a harmless minor edit. Made a minor edit to the dab page for commitment -- could have reverted per WP:DABNOT but decided it was harmless. Added a sentence to childhood, no ref given in the text but the edit summary gave the ref as "Psychology (2nd edn) textbook", which is useless; from other students' work it appears this is "Schacter, Daniel L., Daniel Todd. Gilbert, and Daniel M. Wegner. Psychology. New York, NY: Worth, 2011." Checked in Google Books and the edit is an acceptable rephrase. | 7 | 1 hour 19 minutes | Mike Christie | Yes | Yes |
Shivarni93 ( talk · contribs) | Added a paragraph on morphemes and phonemes to the lead. Sourced correctly, and the material was acceptably paraphrased though a little too close to the original for my taste; still, the student had clearly worked to re-present the material. I removed it as inappropriate detail for the lead; note posted to the talk page to suggest that this or similar material might be usable lower down the article. Added material on Broca's aphasia and Wernicke's aphasia to aphasia; some attempt made to paraphrase the source, but I removed it as close paraphrase. | 2 (3) | 19 minutes (12 minutes) | Mike Christie | Yes | No |
UTSCJonii ( talk · contribs) | Fixed a minor layout error in alcohol abuse. Added a couple of words to aphasia; unsourced but probably OK, though incorrectly capitalized. | 2 | 6 minutes | Mike Christie | No | Yes |
HassiniUofT ( talk · contribs) | Added material from "February 20, 1992. Damasio A.R. N Engl J Med 1992; 326:531-539"; can't see enough of the article to tell if it's plagiarized or not. The additions were removed by Lova Falk as redundant. Added a couple of sentences to stress (psychological) from "Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D, Miller GE. 2007. Psychological stress and disease. JAMA. 298(14):1685-1687"; new text partly removed by Lova Falk, but one sentence that looks useful and properly cited remains. | 3 | 10 minutes | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Meowpsych ( talk · contribs) | Added a phrase to a sentence that was already cited, making it appear that the new material came from that source; also added a paragraph cited to "Contemporary Linguistic Analysis" with no further citation data, containing material that mostly repeated information already in the article. Both removed by Lova Falk. | 1 | 0 minutes | Mike Christie | Can't tell | No |
Luluchan04 ( talk · contribs) | Added a useful sentence to aphasia with a citation to a U of T URL. Added poorly written sentence cited to U of T URL; subsequently rewritten by Lova Falk. | 2 | 6 days | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Fatbatpsya02 ( talk · contribs) | Added a sentence to axon cited to a U of T URL. Removed by Looie496. Added a sentence to behavioural confirmation cited to a U of T URL but also giving the journal: "Gruman, Jamie A. and Ariganello, Mellisa (2002). Behavioural Confirmation of the Loneliness Steretype. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(2)." | 3 | 1 hour 4 minutes | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Jht94 ( talk · contribs) | Added a sentence to axon cited to a U of T URL but also to "Waxman, S.G., J.D. Kocsis, and P.K. Stys. "The Axon : structure, function, and pathophysiology." Oxford University Press. 15. (1995): 692. Web. 22 Mar. 2013." Page 692 not visible in Google Books preview; poorly worded so probably not straight copy/paste. Addition reverted soon afterwards as a poor quality edit. Added a marginally useful sentence to motor skill from "Eran, D, and G.C. Leonardo. "Neuroplasticity Subserving Motor Skill Learning." Elsevier Inc.. (2011): 443-454."; can't check the source. | 2 (4) | 5 hours 40 minutes (3 hours 20 minutes) | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
10kimbeu ( talk · contribs) | Added material from an unreliable source to sex differences in humans; rephrased so badly that it became meaningless. I removed it. Added three sentences to B.F. Skinner; inappropriate content, including copy/paste from source (which was incompletely cited just as "Psychology. ; Second Edition. (2010)"Chapter 9: Language and Thought" Worth Publishers, Incorporated"). I removed it. | 3 | 40 minutes | Mike Christie | Yes | No |
Sidra.s91 ( talk · contribs) | Added a couple of sentences to Belmont report. In wrong place and can't check the source; moved the material to a slightly better location in case someone else can find a use for it. Added material to Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity; unable to check source. | 4 | 1 hour 34 minutes | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Congee1 ( talk · contribs) | Copyedited Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity; no access to source. Added several sentences to kinetic depth effect cited to "Wallach, H., & O'Connell, D. N. (1953). The kinetic depth effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(4), 205-217. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0056880"; no access to source. | 2 (4) | 1 hour (2 days) | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Lenaathi ( talk · contribs) | Added a sentence to self-actualization cited to "Smith, M. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 1990. Santa Cruz: Sage Publications, 1990"; can't check the source. Added material to mnemonic cited to ""Long-term effects of mnemonic training in community-dwelling older adults"]"Journal of Psychiatric Research", October 2007" via a U of T URL; can't check the source. | 4 | 46 minutes | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Leungw24 ( talk · contribs) | Added a sentence cited to "Smith, W. 2001. Revisiting the Belmont Report. The Hastings Center Report, Vol 31 (2) 5"; I found a very similar sentence in "Respect for the Elderly: Implications for Human Service Providers edited by Kyu-tak Sŏng and Bum Kim" on Google Books, so it may be mis-cited -- I can't check the cited source. I think I know what the student intended to say, but the partial rephrase made the meaning so vague that I removed the sentence. Added a sentence taken almost verbatim from this web page; reverted as poor quality edit by Lova Falk. | 2 | 18 minutes | Mike Christie | Yes | No |
Psyyea ( talk · contribs) |
Added a sentence to
Belmont Report cited to Vollmer/Howard, Sara/George (December 2010). "Statistical power, the Belmont report, and the ethics of clinical trials". Science and Engineering Ethics. 16 (4): 681.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: date and year (
link); can't check source.
Added a sentence to
countercontrol cited to Carey/Bourbon, Timothy A/W Thomas (September 2006). "Is Countercontrol the Key to Understanding Chronic Behavior Problems?". Intervention in School and Clinic. 42 (1): 5–13.
doi:
10.1177/10534512060420010201.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: date and year (
link); can't check source.Colin: Note the Belmont Report sentence says "According to Vollmer and Howard, the Belmont Report ..." so has in-text attribution. But this is utterly inappropriate style for the article (especially the lead). The reader will rightly ask "who on earth are Vollmer and Howard and why should I care what they say?". This is academic writing style. |
5 (6) | 42 minutes (3 hours) | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Hereforpsych ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 12 minutes | Mike Christie | |||
5MLH5 ( talk · contribs) | 5 (1) | 11 hours | ||||
Being Time ( talk · contribs) | 6 (2) | 6 hours (13 minutes) | ||||
Triplusfineliner ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 23 minutes | ||||
Faiza93 ( talk · contribs) | 8 | 4 days | ||||
Aliyass3 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 7 minutes | ||||
Noor.leghari ( talk · contribs) | 2 (4) | 57 minutes (17 hours) |
User | # Edits | Duration | Comment | Reviewer |
---|---|---|---|---|
Walshale ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 22 hours 30 minutes | Edit refs are primary sources [120] [121] | Doc James |
Smartieslol123 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 1 hour | Edits looks good [122] | Doc James |
Bramsubick ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 2 days | material directly copied from this source; I have reverted as blatant plagiarism | Go Phightins! |
Veelieu ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 3 hours | edits look OK | Go Phightins! |
Steefy2794 ( talk · contribs) | 6 | 14 days | edits look fine | Go Phightins! |
Punish3r227 ( talk · contribs) | 7 | 58 minutes | Though the edits were rather quote heavy, they were cited, so I will say that they are probably OK | Go Phightins! |
Carlos.nag ( talk · contribs) | 1 | 0 minutes | Good | Go Phightins! |
Thatscrazyish ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 22 minutes | edits have been cleaned up by other editors, but not because of plagiarism or anything of the like | Go Phightins! |
GawtamT ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 3 minutes | edits look good | Go Phightins! |
YeungD ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 12 days | edit to
Logopenic progressive aphasia appears to be copied from a letter in
this article; have reverted second edit is extremely close paraphrasing...that one I have cleaned up third edit was simply adding a source, fourth edit is copied, and I have reverted |
Go Phightins! |
Alikhaider ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 54 minutes | ||
Apkn ( talk · contribs) | 3 (2) | 6 days (1 day) | ||
Rkrmq719 ( talk · contribs) | 1 | 0 minutes | ||
Deer101 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 10 hours | ||
Tumblinggirl ( talk · contribs) | 4 (2) | 21 minutes (20 minutes) | ||
Galgegod ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 39 minutes | ||
Afewum ( talk · contribs) | 9 | 20 hours | ||
Hahatheirony ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 17 days | ||
Jerald1994 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 6 minutes | ||
Shambika ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 27 minutes | ||
SSM17 ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 21 hours | ||
ArtemisDSII ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 59 minutes | ||
Kalerina ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 4 minutes | ||
Rochelleerika ( talk · contribs) | 4 (13) | 4 hours 10 minutes (1 hour 17 minutes) | ||
Yelenaaa ( talk · contribs) | 1 | 0 minutes | ||
Nadesal6 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 9 minutes | ||
Leader180 ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 20 minutes | ||
Youn94 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 0 minutes | ||
Yiris ( talk · contribs) | 1 | 0 minutes | ||
Letseducateourselves ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 27 minutes | ||
Muchogarrett7 ( talk · contribs) | 4 (2) | 24 minutes (15 minutes) | ||
Maurae7 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 56 minutes | ||
Scizor 99 ( talk · contribs) | 6 (1) | 5 hours 10 minutes (0 minutes) | ||
Haykuhi8 ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 7 minutes | ||
Jorthi ( talk · contribs) | 2 (2) | 34 minutes (12 minutes) |
See User:Colin/A large scale student assignment – what could possibly go wrong? and User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, Part I for the 2011 class
Since Joordens won't release the class list or article list (unlike in 2011), in order to analyse the student work, we have to spot the students. Fortunately they are remarkably easy to spot. Their assignment (if like 2011) is to add two facts to two articles, with citations.
I have identified 410 students who edited 252 articles as part of this class. The process of detection isn't perfect. There will be some students here who aren't part of this class but are almost certainly part of someone's class (because, in general, newbies don't turn up on psychology articles to add a fact citing a student textbook). But I think that nearly all of them are part of Joordens' class. There will also be others I haven't found or chose not to list because I wasn't sure. In 2011, when we had an incomplete list of students, a third of the students only edited one article and three-quarters of the articles were edited by only one student. So there's likely to be a large number of students undetected by this spider-crawl technique. Although the class has 1700 students, far fewer than that actually edited in 2011. In 2013, the proportion editing seems to be a lot higher. My guess is between 200 and 400 more students unlisted and perhaps 300 articles unlisted.
I'm going through the edits of the above alphabetical student list looking for ones where the source is the web or a freely available online journal. I'll list the edit here and comment on plagiarism (either direct copy/paste or close paraphrasing).
Update: I don't see much point in continuing this. Nearly all of the edits where I can examine the source are plagiarised. Sometimes blatant copy/paste, sometimes the punctuation and conjunctions are changed, sometimes a little more rework. But still close paraphrasing without in-text attribution. On the rare exception when the student really does attempt to write in their own words, they nearly always screw up. Which is hardly surprising since they don't really understand their subject yet. These are 1st-year undergrads doing an "Introduction to" class in a subject most of them aren't planning to qualify in. Colin° Talk 16:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
For the analysis, I'm looking at each edit and judging its qualities. Does the sentence make sense? Does it fit in this location in the article or even in the article? How good is the citation? Is the text a copy vio (copy paste portions (clauses) into Google is the easiest way to spot this, particularly if the prose is well written) -- Google will find journal text even if behind a paywall. Then look at the article history since and see if the edit was retained. If not, who removed it and why? Diffs help for the add/remove but aren't required.
This list is fairly stable and other volunteers could assess these students one at a time. Put your name against a bunch of students to indicate you are going to review them.
NOTE: If the "Plagiarism/Copyvio found" column is empty, that means the reviewer didn't check or didn't have access to the source.
User | Comment | # Edits | Duration | Reviewer | Plagiarism/Copyvio found? | Useful material added? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
116ebestbus ( talk · contribs) | No concerns | 2 | 1 minute | Doc James | ||
Ab 1234 ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: First edit
[1] content already present. Primary research study. Reverted by next editor. Second edit is good.
[2] Colin: Second edit is too close to source. Article: Dietary restrictions are not recommended for young children; instead children should be encouraged to engage in high energy activity, minimize low energy activity and develop healthy eating habits. Source: Diet restriction is not recommended in very young children...Encourage overweight children to expand high energy activity, minimize low energy activity (screen watching), and develop healthful eating habits. |
3 | 19 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Adhiyaak ( talk · contribs) | First edit adds content in the wrong spot [3] Second edits ref is to the inside net [4] | 2 | 13 minutes | Doc James | ||
Abraham.lee3 ( talk · contribs) | First edit okay-ish [5] Ref poorly formatted. Second edit not to bad. Paraphrasing is a little difficult to figure out. [6] | 4 (2) | 1 day 2 hours (6 1/2 hours) | Doc James | ||
Ageofagua8 ( talk · contribs) | Edits appears okay [7] | 7 (6) | 1 hours 5 minutes (41 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Aldecoar ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: Okay Colin Copy/paste Article: Nevertheless, adolescence period is one of multiple transitions, involving education, training, employment and unemployment, as well as transitions from one living circumstance to another. Source: Today, however, writers are more likely to describe [adolescence] as one of multiple transitions, involving education, training, employment and unemployment, as well as transitions from one living circumstance to another. |
1 | 0 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Ap0305 ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: Looks okay Colin: Key phrases copied, rewording changes meaning (e.g. the "probably" is dropped). Article: Another developmental factor for childhood/infant obesity may be due to maternal hyperglycemia, which can lead to increased glucose transport across the placenta. The increased glucose transport will cause an increased insulin secretion by the fetal pancreas which in turn will result in an increase in both the number and content of fat cells. Source: The second proposed developmental pathway to [childhood] obesity...Maternal hyperglycemia leads to increased glucose transport across the placenta and in turn to increased insulin secretion by the fetal pancreas. Insulin is adipogenic in late fetal and infant life and probably increases both fat cell number and content. |
7 | 1 day 23 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Ashleebireley ( talk · contribs) | (Not sure about this one} Ref and wording inappropriate [8] | 6 | 1 hour 41 minutes | Doc James | ||
Anuj Kapahi ( talk · contribs) | Ref to text but no page number [9] Same issue with second edit however the wording is also barely intelligible [10] Reverted | 2 | 10 minutes | Doc James | ||
Babbarsu ( talk · contribs) | Inappropriate wording for an encyclopedia [11] and Marie Claire is not a suitable ref. Content is wrong. Second edit is unreffed [12] | 2 | 17 minutes | Doc James | ||
Bandit3 ( talk · contribs) | User adding content to disambig [13] Wording is poor. Second edit uses a blog as a ref and of course humans are animals [14] | 7 | 21 minutes | Doc James | ||
Batman766 ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: No ref in the edits
[15]
[16] Colin: Likely plagiarism. The five factors added to Decision making are listed here. Really should be attributed in-text. |
2 | 7 minutes | Doc James | LIKELY | |
Buttburh ( talk · contribs) | Ref to inside net [17] | 2 | 17 minutes | Doc James | ||
B zara ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: May be okay
[18] Colin: Plagiarism Article: Near the end of his life, he attended Association for Humanistic Psychology’s founding meeting in 1963 where he declined nomination as its president, arguing that the new organization should develop an intellectual movement without a leader which resulted in useful useful strategy during the field’s early years. Source: Maslow was at the Association for Humanistic Psychology's founding meeting in 1963. He declined nomination as its president, arguing that the new organisation should develop an intellectual movement without a leader. This formed a useful strategy during the field's early years" |
1 | 0 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Butterfly4444 ( talk · contribs) | First edit [19] what was added is not really what the source says. Next two edits reverted as vague / meaningless [20] | 4 | 20 hours | Doc James | ||
BWikiUser ( talk · contribs) | Edit very hard to understand and ref to inside net [21] Next statement is a little strange and to the inside net but some extra details so could probably make it out [22] | 2 | 39 minutes | Doc James | ||
Caitlin7211 ( talk · contribs) | A strange statement [23] | 1 (2) | 0 minutes (1 hour 16 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Changlo2 ( talk · contribs) | No sure how this relates to prognosis [24] Second edit not to bad [25] | 4 | 6 hours 20 minutes | Doc James | ||
Chrikatu 20 ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: Edits okay
[26] Colin: Good attempt to summaries a page of information into a few sentences. Makes one possible mistake in that severity of traumatic experience isn't related to duration of amnesia but to incidences, according to the source. This would have been caught if the edit was reviewed when marked. |
2 | 17 hours | Doc James | NO | |
Doctorkazooka ( talk · contribs) | Doc James: Edits okay Colin: The addition uses in-text attribution for close-paraphrased text. However, the reader doesn't know who "Ghafoor" is and has no reason to care. There is no excuse for us not putting this into our own words. |
3 (2) | 18 minutes (47 minutes) | Doc James | NO | |
Djp1717 ( talk · contribs) | Okay | 5 (2) | 9 minutes (24 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Egglayingmonkey ( talk · contribs) | A 1935 book as ref? [27] No ref in second [28] | 2 | 1 day 6 hours 10 minutes | Doc James | ||
Forozan n ( talk · contribs) | Students first edit is PLAGIARISM [29] of [30] Reverted as such. Prolonged QT is NOT a cause of anorexia [31] | 2 (5) | 9 minutes (26 minutes) | Doc James | YES | |
Habibyum ( talk · contribs) | First edit is about mice and ref is to a newpaper [32] Other edits could use better refs. | 3 (3) | 16 hours | Doc James | ||
Hamhamchan ( talk · contribs) | Editor reverted own edit | 2 | 1 minute | Doc James | ||
Hhhdltnqls ( talk · contribs) | Source is primary rather than secondary [33] Okay-ish. Second edit ref is poor [34] | 2 | 24 minutes | Doc James | ||
Hologgraz ( talk · contribs) | Primary source as ref [35] [36] | 2 | 1 hours 38 minutes | Doc James | ||
IanSu ( talk · contribs) | Repeated addition of unsourced content [37] reverted. Other is minor wording [38] | 9 | 1 day 23 hours | Doc James | ||
Ijoyfulness ( talk · contribs) | Changed understandable to not understandable text [39]. Changed correct numbers to incorrect numbers [40] Ie VANDALISM | 2 | 8 minutes | Doc James | ||
Jasvinei ( talk · contribs) | Ref good. Wording a little hard to understand [41] | 1 | 0 minutes | Doc James | ||
Jathiban ( talk · contribs) | Okay minor edits | 3 | 11 minutes | Doc James | ||
Jayykub13 ( talk · contribs) | First edit unreffed [42] second edit broke formatting and ref to inside net [43] To top it off it is PLAGIARISM from [44] | 2 | 10 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Jenneilson ( talk · contribs) | In this edit [45] they state 5 year olds when paper is about grade 5 students. Study mentions "overweight" however student confused with "obesity". Also primary source Crevix removed | 5 | 13 minutes | Doc James | ||
Jessy3149 ( talk · contribs) | Reworded a correlation as a cause [46] Otherwise appears okay. Used a review article. | 7 | 26 minutes | Doc James | ||
JCLU8694 ( talk · contribs) | Added content to wrong spot in this edit [47] Appears to be from here [48] | 3 (5) | 3 hours (2 1/2) | |||
Jhwithsh ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added useful link to "See also" section. (2) Added duplicate link to "See also" section. Deleted by Flyer22. |
2 | 6 minutes | Anthonyhcole | (1) Yes (2) No | |
Jp271 ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added duplicate information using slang ("puke") and non-MEDRS source.
Reverted by Arctic Kangaroo. (2) Added wrong information ("Childhood obesity is the cause of not getting enough physical activity...") and duplicate information. Reverted by Cresix. |
2 | 1 hour 33 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | |
J.hermans9 ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added mostly duplicate information, citing intranet link. Anthonyhcole
deleted 29 words, retained one. (2)
Added good content, 1952 source. Persists. |
3 (3) | 13 minutes (36 minutes) | Anthonyhcole | Yes | |
Karandeep39 ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added good, relevant unsourced copy-paste plagiarism from
anxietycentre.com (2) Added serious misinterpretation of the findings of a single double blind trial. Reverted by Icarus of old. |
3 | 4 hours 20 minutes | Anthonyhcole | Yes | No |
Kangaroo91 ( talk · contribs) |
[49] Unfathomable meaning. Citing 1939 book. Adding article content to a
disambiguation page.
Reverted by
User:Johnmperry after 34 hours. Added unfathomable text to Attribution (psychology). Reverted by Colin. Added more unthathomable text to Motivated forgetting. Reverted by Anthonyhcole. |
4 | 6 days | Anthonyhcole/Colin | No | |
Killinan ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added 2 sentences about a small (classic) 34 year-old prospective study. Good paraphrasing, good expression, relevant. (I checked against current sources that the info' is still current.) Persists. (2) Added irrelevant non sequitur to lede. Deleted by Looie496 |
3 | 42 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | (1) Yes (2) No |
Kookiemonstur ( talk · contribs) |
Added useful content with a well-formatted (classic, seminal 1967) citation. Expression needs clean-up. Reverted by Icarus of old. |
1 | 0 minutes | Anthonyhcole | Yes | |
Lanchenshenghui ( talk · contribs) |
Added valueless verbiage to lede citing 1954 book, no page number. Rejected by Jeremy.Hebert. |
1 | 0 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | |
Leshawnantoine ( talk · contribs) |
Added redundant definition of the topic. Deleted by Anthonyhcole Added irrelevant factoid to a disambiguation page. Deleted by Johnmperry |
2 | 35 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | |
LulzGoat ( talk · contribs) | Looks fine to me.(T) Me too. (A) Added two apposite facts with good sources and good cites. | 2 | 19 minutes | Tryptofish Anthonyhcole |
No | Yes |
Marsh180 ( talk · contribs) |
Added a section to
Ablative brain surgery on epilepsy. This had synthesis of sources, plagiarism and incorrect facts. Removed by Colin. Added a source to Bulimia nervosa but it wasn't a neutral source and was removed by Dawnseeker2000. |
3 | 1 day 5 hours | Colin | YES | |
Mistry123 ( talk · contribs) | (1)
Added irrelevant content to a disambiguation page. Deleted by Wtmitchell (2) Added meaningless verbiage, citing 800 page textbook with no page number. |
2 | 26 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | |
Mr.wonderful234 ( talk · contribs) | Added content addressing "men and women" to article about adolescents with useless citations. Persists. | 1 | 0 minutes | Anthonyhcole | No | |
MustafaKanchwala ( talk · contribs) |
Added a fact on epilepsy to the
epileptic seizure article. Sourced to intranet so useless cite. Added a section "Predicting Epileptic Seizures". The short paragraph is, apart from the first few words, a direct copy-paste of the abstract of
PMID
12849542, though again the source give is an intranet address.
Removed by Fvasconcellos as a copyvio. Added a fact to Childhood obesity that is in the wrong place (not a long-term health effect) and already covered in the right place. Removed by LovaFalk. |
2 | 24 minutes | Colin | YES | |
MSvarichKnights ( talk · contribs) | First edit not sure if should be here [50] Not sure what this really means [51] | 2 (3) | 17 minutes (1 hour 9 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Nataliexhochoy ( talk · contribs) | First edits I am having difficulty with [52] Second edit adds errors [53] | 4 | 2 hours 15 minutes | Doc James | ||
NatashaSav ( talk · contribs) | Minor edits [54] [55] | 3 | 19 minutes | Doc James | ||
Nicsch8 ( talk · contribs) | First edit [56] poorly worded. Second edit unreffed [57] | 5 (2) | 23 minutes (45 minutes) | Doc James | ||
N.bakr ( talk · contribs) | Editor put content in the wrong spot [58] It was also poorly referenced. Reverted by Cresix. Second edit [59] involves some close paraphrasing of the source [60] and the ref is poorly formatted. | 3 | 4 hours 55 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Parisbesosxo ( talk · contribs) | Users first edit [61] based on a primary study of 36 people [62] and put in the wrong part of the article. Second addition also poorly sourced [63] | 4 | 22 minutes | Doc James | ||
Pinemelon ( talk · contribs) | First edit ref to inside net [64] Second edit no ref [65] | 3 | 22 minutes | Doc James | ||
Prabanan ( talk · contribs) | First edit to a disambig page [66] with no ref and reverted by CluBot (good bot). User readded [67], was reverted and readded a third time with a ref. Next edit [68] uses page number 13.7 and writing style is strange. Ref does not function. No one fixes. | 4 (4) | 15 minutes (27 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Psy02-2013 ( talk · contribs) | First edit COPY AND PASTE [69] ref poor quality and reverted. Second edit same [70] but not reverted. | 2 | 22 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
PSYCHOLOGYA0ONE ( talk · contribs) | Added a cohort study [71] edit removed. Second edit [72] non encyclopedic tone. Ref is to the companies website. | 3 | 17 minutes | |||
Pwellpeng ( talk · contribs) | First edit okay [73] Second edit minor formatting issues [74] | 4 | 41 minutes | Doc James | ||
Ramen-18 ( talk · contribs) | First edit [75] minor formatting issues. Second edit same | 2 | 1 hour 25 minutes | Doc James | ||
Rongyiji ( talk · contribs) | User placed content on a disambig page [76] No ref provided. User tried second time. Edits reverted. | 4 | 2 hours 44 minutes | Doc James | ||
Rosita3310 ( talk · contribs) | Student reverted own first edit. Second edit appears okay [77] | 3 | 43 minutes | Doc James | ||
Roseahmed ( talk · contribs) | First edit does not really make sense [78] link to inside net but could probably figure it out. Next edit [79] is PLAGIARISM from the source in question [80] Still in article. Third edit [81] does not make much sense and removed in next edit. | 5 (6) | 21 minutes (8 days) | Doc James | YES | |
Rosesandchocolate ( talk · contribs) | First edit [82] ref to inside next. Second edit contains link to inside net [83] | 2 | 52 minutes | Doc James | ||
SaganaJ88 ( talk · contribs) | Edit adds content already in the article and poorly formatted breaking the page in question [84]. Reverted in next edit by Flyer22 | 1 | 0 minutes | Doc James | ||
Smelendez93 ( talk · contribs)Thekratoskilla | Two edits okay [85] [86]. Both use popular press and add details about people. | 2 (3) | 3 hours 23 minutes (5 hours 57 minutes) | Doc James | NO | YES |
Snowyfebsak ( talk · contribs) | First edit [87] links to inside net but enough info to figure it out. Second edit ref to inside net [88] but enough data. User tried again with better results [89] | 3 (2) | 33 minutes | Doc James | ||
Swayne pencil ( talk · contribs) | First edit repeats the same thing twice. Is already stated in the article and uses a newpaper as a ref. [90]. Reverted in next edit. Second edit person added content in a middle of a reference [91] and sentence is difficult to understand. I reverted | 5 | 28 minutes | Doc James | ||
Slimfaiz ( talk · contribs) | First edit links to inside net and content in the wrong spot. [92] Second ref to inside net [93] | 2 | 29 minutes | Doc James | ||
Student944 ( talk · contribs) | First edit okay [94]. Second edit contanis a properly formatted reference [95] | 2 | 1 day 8 hours | Doc James | ||
S.digiallo ( talk · contribs) | Ref is good but does not appear to support the content added [96]. Was removed in next edit as placed in an inappropriate spot. Second edit is unclear [97] | 4 | 14 minutes | Doc James | ||
TessXu ( talk · contribs) | In first edit user COPY AND PASTED from [98] but did not change the ref to the new source [99] First edit is PLAGARISM even if source is public domain. Second edit is PLAGIARISM [100] with content copied from [101] | 6 | 3 hours | Doc James/Colin | YES | |
Tonykaka ( talk · contribs) | First edit not to bad [102]. It is primary research though and poorly formatted. Second edit was a COPY AND PASTE [103] from [104] Ref given but poorly formatted. | 3 | 55 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
Twtpoppy ( talk · contribs) |
Added a sentence to
Epileptic seizure that was impenetrable nonsense. The citation was good.
Removed by Colin. Added a sentence to Self-control theory of crime. The sentence repeats some of what is already covered. Was lifted copy-paste from the source. Removed by Colin. |
2 | 91 minutes | Colin | YES | |
Unigirl02 ( talk · contribs) | First edits [105] link to inside net. Removed in next edit. Second edit [106] uses primary research to support poor written content. As article was getting such a high number of poor quality edits from different editors related to this class it was semi protected by User:Nikkimaria | 6 | 43 minutes | Doc James | ||
Vaal77 ( talk · contribs) | Added content that was already in the article with a link to the U of T inside net [107] Edit reject by User:Icarus of old. Second edit may be [108] Still linked to inside net and ref not properly formatted. Ref may be the wrong paper. | 4 | 9 hours | Doc James | ||
Vivian155 ( talk · contribs) | This edit [109] rejected as a random comment. The next edit [110] doesn't really say much. | 2 | 13 minutes | Doc James | ||
Wiki753 ( talk · contribs) | This edit [111] more or less adds duplication of the sentence above it. Reverted by next editor. Second edit appears okay [112]. Not sure if already covered. | 2 (3) | 11 minutes (15 minutes) | Doc James | ||
Xxamyvvu ( talk · contribs) | First edit very poorly formatted [113] and removed. Second was also very poorly formatted and was placed in the middle of another sentence which two other editors fixed. [114] | 3 | 18 minutes | Doc James | ||
Yekaiut ( talk · contribs) | First edit placed content in wrong spot at end of article [115]. Some links to inside net used. Missing page numbers for books. Removed in next edit as duplicated what the article already said. Second edit also placed at end of article. Written in inappropriate tone. [116] PLAGIARIZED from here [117] Removed in next edit. | 2 | 31 minutes | Doc James | YES | |
YWikiUser ( talk · contribs) | First edit uses link to U of T inside net [118] As did the second edit [119] | 2 | 32 minutes | Doc James | ||
ZahedahS ( talk · contribs) |
Added another cause of seizures (cancer patients). Sourced to intranet with useless cite. Language is childish. Fact already present in the article.
Removed by Fvasconcellos. Added a fact to Coping (psychology) that reads like the blurb off a self-help book and inappropriate for a serious psychology article. Removed by Colin. |
2 (3) | 16 minutes (61 minutes) | Colin |
I've separated these out so my assessments don't edit conflict with other edits; I suggest other editors consider doing the same. I'll move these back up when done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
User | Comment | # Edits | Duration | Reviewer | Plagiarism or copyvio or close paraphrase found? | Useful material added? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Petersie879 ( talk · contribs) | Added a sentence to aphasia taken directly from "February 20, 1992. Damasio A.R. N Engl J Med 1992; 326:531-539"; I removed it as copyvio. Also made a harmless minor edit to the same article. Added but then immediately removed a sentence from cognitive dissonance; then made a harmless minor edit. Made a minor edit to the dab page for commitment -- could have reverted per WP:DABNOT but decided it was harmless. Added a sentence to childhood, no ref given in the text but the edit summary gave the ref as "Psychology (2nd edn) textbook", which is useless; from other students' work it appears this is "Schacter, Daniel L., Daniel Todd. Gilbert, and Daniel M. Wegner. Psychology. New York, NY: Worth, 2011." Checked in Google Books and the edit is an acceptable rephrase. | 7 | 1 hour 19 minutes | Mike Christie | Yes | Yes |
Shivarni93 ( talk · contribs) | Added a paragraph on morphemes and phonemes to the lead. Sourced correctly, and the material was acceptably paraphrased though a little too close to the original for my taste; still, the student had clearly worked to re-present the material. I removed it as inappropriate detail for the lead; note posted to the talk page to suggest that this or similar material might be usable lower down the article. Added material on Broca's aphasia and Wernicke's aphasia to aphasia; some attempt made to paraphrase the source, but I removed it as close paraphrase. | 2 (3) | 19 minutes (12 minutes) | Mike Christie | Yes | No |
UTSCJonii ( talk · contribs) | Fixed a minor layout error in alcohol abuse. Added a couple of words to aphasia; unsourced but probably OK, though incorrectly capitalized. | 2 | 6 minutes | Mike Christie | No | Yes |
HassiniUofT ( talk · contribs) | Added material from "February 20, 1992. Damasio A.R. N Engl J Med 1992; 326:531-539"; can't see enough of the article to tell if it's plagiarized or not. The additions were removed by Lova Falk as redundant. Added a couple of sentences to stress (psychological) from "Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D, Miller GE. 2007. Psychological stress and disease. JAMA. 298(14):1685-1687"; new text partly removed by Lova Falk, but one sentence that looks useful and properly cited remains. | 3 | 10 minutes | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Meowpsych ( talk · contribs) | Added a phrase to a sentence that was already cited, making it appear that the new material came from that source; also added a paragraph cited to "Contemporary Linguistic Analysis" with no further citation data, containing material that mostly repeated information already in the article. Both removed by Lova Falk. | 1 | 0 minutes | Mike Christie | Can't tell | No |
Luluchan04 ( talk · contribs) | Added a useful sentence to aphasia with a citation to a U of T URL. Added poorly written sentence cited to U of T URL; subsequently rewritten by Lova Falk. | 2 | 6 days | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Fatbatpsya02 ( talk · contribs) | Added a sentence to axon cited to a U of T URL. Removed by Looie496. Added a sentence to behavioural confirmation cited to a U of T URL but also giving the journal: "Gruman, Jamie A. and Ariganello, Mellisa (2002). Behavioural Confirmation of the Loneliness Steretype. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(2)." | 3 | 1 hour 4 minutes | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Jht94 ( talk · contribs) | Added a sentence to axon cited to a U of T URL but also to "Waxman, S.G., J.D. Kocsis, and P.K. Stys. "The Axon : structure, function, and pathophysiology." Oxford University Press. 15. (1995): 692. Web. 22 Mar. 2013." Page 692 not visible in Google Books preview; poorly worded so probably not straight copy/paste. Addition reverted soon afterwards as a poor quality edit. Added a marginally useful sentence to motor skill from "Eran, D, and G.C. Leonardo. "Neuroplasticity Subserving Motor Skill Learning." Elsevier Inc.. (2011): 443-454."; can't check the source. | 2 (4) | 5 hours 40 minutes (3 hours 20 minutes) | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
10kimbeu ( talk · contribs) | Added material from an unreliable source to sex differences in humans; rephrased so badly that it became meaningless. I removed it. Added three sentences to B.F. Skinner; inappropriate content, including copy/paste from source (which was incompletely cited just as "Psychology. ; Second Edition. (2010)"Chapter 9: Language and Thought" Worth Publishers, Incorporated"). I removed it. | 3 | 40 minutes | Mike Christie | Yes | No |
Sidra.s91 ( talk · contribs) | Added a couple of sentences to Belmont report. In wrong place and can't check the source; moved the material to a slightly better location in case someone else can find a use for it. Added material to Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity; unable to check source. | 4 | 1 hour 34 minutes | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Congee1 ( talk · contribs) | Copyedited Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity; no access to source. Added several sentences to kinetic depth effect cited to "Wallach, H., & O'Connell, D. N. (1953). The kinetic depth effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(4), 205-217. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0056880"; no access to source. | 2 (4) | 1 hour (2 days) | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Lenaathi ( talk · contribs) | Added a sentence to self-actualization cited to "Smith, M. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 1990. Santa Cruz: Sage Publications, 1990"; can't check the source. Added material to mnemonic cited to ""Long-term effects of mnemonic training in community-dwelling older adults"]"Journal of Psychiatric Research", October 2007" via a U of T URL; can't check the source. | 4 | 46 minutes | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Leungw24 ( talk · contribs) | Added a sentence cited to "Smith, W. 2001. Revisiting the Belmont Report. The Hastings Center Report, Vol 31 (2) 5"; I found a very similar sentence in "Respect for the Elderly: Implications for Human Service Providers edited by Kyu-tak Sŏng and Bum Kim" on Google Books, so it may be mis-cited -- I can't check the cited source. I think I know what the student intended to say, but the partial rephrase made the meaning so vague that I removed the sentence. Added a sentence taken almost verbatim from this web page; reverted as poor quality edit by Lova Falk. | 2 | 18 minutes | Mike Christie | Yes | No |
Psyyea ( talk · contribs) |
Added a sentence to
Belmont Report cited to Vollmer/Howard, Sara/George (December 2010). "Statistical power, the Belmont report, and the ethics of clinical trials". Science and Engineering Ethics. 16 (4): 681.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: date and year (
link); can't check source.
Added a sentence to
countercontrol cited to Carey/Bourbon, Timothy A/W Thomas (September 2006). "Is Countercontrol the Key to Understanding Chronic Behavior Problems?". Intervention in School and Clinic. 42 (1): 5–13.
doi:
10.1177/10534512060420010201.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: date and year (
link); can't check source.Colin: Note the Belmont Report sentence says "According to Vollmer and Howard, the Belmont Report ..." so has in-text attribution. But this is utterly inappropriate style for the article (especially the lead). The reader will rightly ask "who on earth are Vollmer and Howard and why should I care what they say?". This is academic writing style. |
5 (6) | 42 minutes (3 hours) | Mike Christie | Can't tell | Yes |
Hereforpsych ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 12 minutes | Mike Christie | |||
5MLH5 ( talk · contribs) | 5 (1) | 11 hours | ||||
Being Time ( talk · contribs) | 6 (2) | 6 hours (13 minutes) | ||||
Triplusfineliner ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 23 minutes | ||||
Faiza93 ( talk · contribs) | 8 | 4 days | ||||
Aliyass3 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 7 minutes | ||||
Noor.leghari ( talk · contribs) | 2 (4) | 57 minutes (17 hours) |
User | # Edits | Duration | Comment | Reviewer |
---|---|---|---|---|
Walshale ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 22 hours 30 minutes | Edit refs are primary sources [120] [121] | Doc James |
Smartieslol123 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 1 hour | Edits looks good [122] | Doc James |
Bramsubick ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 2 days | material directly copied from this source; I have reverted as blatant plagiarism | Go Phightins! |
Veelieu ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 3 hours | edits look OK | Go Phightins! |
Steefy2794 ( talk · contribs) | 6 | 14 days | edits look fine | Go Phightins! |
Punish3r227 ( talk · contribs) | 7 | 58 minutes | Though the edits were rather quote heavy, they were cited, so I will say that they are probably OK | Go Phightins! |
Carlos.nag ( talk · contribs) | 1 | 0 minutes | Good | Go Phightins! |
Thatscrazyish ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 22 minutes | edits have been cleaned up by other editors, but not because of plagiarism or anything of the like | Go Phightins! |
GawtamT ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 3 minutes | edits look good | Go Phightins! |
YeungD ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 12 days | edit to
Logopenic progressive aphasia appears to be copied from a letter in
this article; have reverted second edit is extremely close paraphrasing...that one I have cleaned up third edit was simply adding a source, fourth edit is copied, and I have reverted |
Go Phightins! |
Alikhaider ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 54 minutes | ||
Apkn ( talk · contribs) | 3 (2) | 6 days (1 day) | ||
Rkrmq719 ( talk · contribs) | 1 | 0 minutes | ||
Deer101 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 10 hours | ||
Tumblinggirl ( talk · contribs) | 4 (2) | 21 minutes (20 minutes) | ||
Galgegod ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 39 minutes | ||
Afewum ( talk · contribs) | 9 | 20 hours | ||
Hahatheirony ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 17 days | ||
Jerald1994 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 6 minutes | ||
Shambika ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 27 minutes | ||
SSM17 ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 21 hours | ||
ArtemisDSII ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 59 minutes | ||
Kalerina ( talk · contribs) | 4 | 4 minutes | ||
Rochelleerika ( talk · contribs) | 4 (13) | 4 hours 10 minutes (1 hour 17 minutes) | ||
Yelenaaa ( talk · contribs) | 1 | 0 minutes | ||
Nadesal6 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 9 minutes | ||
Leader180 ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 20 minutes | ||
Youn94 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 0 minutes | ||
Yiris ( talk · contribs) | 1 | 0 minutes | ||
Letseducateourselves ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 27 minutes | ||
Muchogarrett7 ( talk · contribs) | 4 (2) | 24 minutes (15 minutes) | ||
Maurae7 ( talk · contribs) | 2 | 56 minutes | ||
Scizor 99 ( talk · contribs) | 6 (1) | 5 hours 10 minutes (0 minutes) | ||
Haykuhi8 ( talk · contribs) | 3 | 7 minutes | ||
Jorthi ( talk · contribs) | 2 (2) | 34 minutes (12 minutes) |