Essays High‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Close paraphrasing page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Chaauto Chaauto ( talk) 03:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@
Clean Copy: I'm not sure I understand
what you are saying. The fact that sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate and sometimes it is not is irrelevant when specifically discussing cases where it definitely is not, i.e., cases where there is clear consensus that the paraphrasing was too close, or where the content had to be revdelled because it was too close. This is why the text I added specified that it referred to text that has been removed as being too close
. This is apparently a recurrent problem on the project, and it's pretty annoying when the wording of the policy is, on its face, vague enough as to apparently encourage rather than solve the problem.
We are in agreement, surely, that in cases like this and this the "close paraphrasing is not plagiarism" argument is inappropriate, no?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Paraphrasing of copyrighted material#Tags. Levivich seems to think that saying a paraphrase may violate copyright is original research and has tagged the article to say that. Can anyone else please give an opinion there. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This essay says in more than one place that closely paraphrased material should have in-text attribution. A recent change to WP:CITE (see this discussion) removed the statement that quotations and paraphrases should have in-text attribution. That guideline now says that citation may suffice except for biased statements of opinion. Both WP:V and WP:NONFREE already say that citing quoted and paraphrased material may be sufficient and attribution in the text is not always needed.
I would like to change this essay to clarify that in-text attribution is not required and that citing the source may be sufficient. Specifically I'd like to make the following changes:
Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is cited, or (for biased statements of opinion) clearly attributed in the text
Public domain material must likewise be cited to avoid plagiarism, and may also be attributed in the text
With published work, biased statements of opinion should be attributed in the text either to the author or the publication or both.Note that this change also removes the requirement that the author's name be given in every case -- in some cases, it is the publication that's important in indicating the bias or otherwise of the statement and whether to name the publication or the author or both should be left to editor discretion.
Quotations of biased statements of opinion should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author
This essay uses "attribute" in some places to mean either citation or in-text attribution, so I have not proposed modifying every use of "attribute" as I think some are unambiguous. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I have added a shortcut to the translation section, to make this easier to link to on talk pages. I've also started discussions on Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights about adding a brief note about translation and linking here. Rjjiii ( talk) 17:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Essays High‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Close paraphrasing page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Chaauto Chaauto ( talk) 03:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@
Clean Copy: I'm not sure I understand
what you are saying. The fact that sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate and sometimes it is not is irrelevant when specifically discussing cases where it definitely is not, i.e., cases where there is clear consensus that the paraphrasing was too close, or where the content had to be revdelled because it was too close. This is why the text I added specified that it referred to text that has been removed as being too close
. This is apparently a recurrent problem on the project, and it's pretty annoying when the wording of the policy is, on its face, vague enough as to apparently encourage rather than solve the problem.
We are in agreement, surely, that in cases like this and this the "close paraphrasing is not plagiarism" argument is inappropriate, no?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Paraphrasing of copyrighted material#Tags. Levivich seems to think that saying a paraphrase may violate copyright is original research and has tagged the article to say that. Can anyone else please give an opinion there. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This essay says in more than one place that closely paraphrased material should have in-text attribution. A recent change to WP:CITE (see this discussion) removed the statement that quotations and paraphrases should have in-text attribution. That guideline now says that citation may suffice except for biased statements of opinion. Both WP:V and WP:NONFREE already say that citing quoted and paraphrased material may be sufficient and attribution in the text is not always needed.
I would like to change this essay to clarify that in-text attribution is not required and that citing the source may be sufficient. Specifically I'd like to make the following changes:
Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is cited, or (for biased statements of opinion) clearly attributed in the text
Public domain material must likewise be cited to avoid plagiarism, and may also be attributed in the text
With published work, biased statements of opinion should be attributed in the text either to the author or the publication or both.Note that this change also removes the requirement that the author's name be given in every case -- in some cases, it is the publication that's important in indicating the bias or otherwise of the statement and whether to name the publication or the author or both should be left to editor discretion.
Quotations of biased statements of opinion should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author
This essay uses "attribute" in some places to mean either citation or in-text attribution, so I have not proposed modifying every use of "attribute" as I think some are unambiguous. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I have added a shortcut to the translation section, to make this easier to link to on talk pages. I've also started discussions on Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations and Wikipedia talk:Copyrights about adding a brief note about translation and linking here. Rjjiii ( talk) 17:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)