Essays High‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages High This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Close paraphrasing page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Chaauto Chaauto (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

I am sure that we are in agreement that close paraphrasing sometimes is and sometimes is not plagiarism.

My problem is this: Merely because one editor has removed another editor's text as being "too close" does not prove that it is plagiarism. Nor does it strip away all possibility of defending the added text by citing the close paraphrasing policy. The existing policy statement in this article very clearly spells out the criteria (note the repeated use of the term limited). Its implementation in any particular case will depend upon consensus (on the relevant article talk page) as to whether a given text crosses the line or not. The point of your addition seems to be to issue a warning to potential abusers of the policy, but the following paragraph spells out exactly the dangers, though in a less confrontational manner.

I'd love for one or two others to weigh in here; if anyone at all agrees that the text you want to add is helpful, I will immediately drop my opposition. Clean Copy^talk 13:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If an editor closely paraphrases a source and does not cite that source, it is plagiarism. If they cite the source it is not plagiarism, but the close paraphrase may be unacceptable for other reasons. I think the present wording is fine. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 clearly attributed in the text -> 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 attributed to avoid plagiarism -> Public domain material must likewise be cited to avoid plagiarism, and may also be attributed in the text
• With published work, editors should attribute each source to the author where the publication names the author, and attribute the source to the publication if it does not name the author. -> 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 should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author -> 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)Reply[reply]

@Mike Christie,

I would prefer being more aggressive about the difference between inline Wikipedia:Attribution (e.g., adding little blue clicky numbers) and WP:INTEXT attribution (e.g. "Alice Expert wrote..."). If it resulted in all of the former being re-written as "cited" and all of the latter being spelled out as "in-text attribution", then I'd consider that a significant improvement.

On the specific points:

1. I'd add "does not violate copyrights", since close paraphrasing is about those slightly rewordings that still result in copyvios.

   I made it "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material does not violate copyrights and is cited and (for biased statements of opinion) clearly attributed in the text". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2. To highlight the copyvio nature of this page, I might change this to "Although in legal terms it's not possible to have close paraphrasing of a work without copyright protection, Wikipedia's own rules require public domain material to be cited..." And perhaps "may optionally have in-text attribution" or "may have in-text attribution when appropriate".

   I changed it to "Although in legal terms it's not possible to have close paraphrasing of a work without copyright protection, Wikipedia's own rules require public domain material to be cited. Public domain material may have in-text attribution where appropriate." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3. I'm not sure why this third item says "With published work", since "unpublished work" isn't usable on wiki. Otherwise, I think this is a significant improvement.

   Done; I know what you mean about "published work" but another copyedit can take of that if necessary -- I made the change as given above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4. Maybe add "must always have inline citations", since that's a hard requirement from WP:V (assuming that isn't clear in surrounding sentences).

   I made it "Quotations must always have inline citations, and quotations of biased statements of opinion should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overall, I think this is a good idea. I appreciate you sorting this out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks; changes made. Let me know if you think further tweaks are needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for making these changes, @Mike Christie. About "should be cited to their original source or author": Is that strictly true? I think that normally WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is followed, rather than tracing s quotation back to the original source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see your point. Perhaps just cut that phrase since we now mention inline citations? Feel free to make the change if you agree; I may be afk for a bit after this post, perhaps till tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]