Difference between revisions of "User talk:Hsmom"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(copying from US Gov sites)
(copying from US Gov sites: reply)
Line 176: Line 176:
 
: [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it is acceptable if it is properly indicated as a quotation and cited, right?  Otherwise, aren't we being deceitful by presenting someone else's work as our own?  And copying so much of a single site, word-for-word, page after page, even including the pictures, without indicating that it is quoted directly from another site, and without adding any of the Conservapedia editor's own words, seems dishonest to me.  It may be legal, if the material is in the public domain, but it still seems unethical to me.  I'm uncomfortable with encouraging students to do this kind of copying, when instead they could read several sites on a particular subject and then create their own nice little article about it.  It takes a bit more time, of course, but not much, and they learn so much more from doing it.  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:25, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 
: [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it is acceptable if it is properly indicated as a quotation and cited, right?  Otherwise, aren't we being deceitful by presenting someone else's work as our own?  And copying so much of a single site, word-for-word, page after page, even including the pictures, without indicating that it is quoted directly from another site, and without adding any of the Conservapedia editor's own words, seems dishonest to me.  It may be legal, if the material is in the public domain, but it still seems unethical to me.  I'm uncomfortable with encouraging students to do this kind of copying, when instead they could read several sites on a particular subject and then create their own nice little article about it.  It takes a bit more time, of course, but not much, and they learn so much more from doing it.  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:25, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 
:By the way, I think you made an excellent point the other day in the Trainspotting discussion, but I haven't had a chance to mention it yet! Weekend laundry is taking up my time! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:28, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 
:By the way, I think you made an excellent point the other day in the Trainspotting discussion, but I haven't had a chance to mention it yet! Weekend laundry is taking up my time! --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:28, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Thanks for your Trainspotting feedback, and I certainly recognize the demands of laundry and other chores that need to be done!
 +
 +
::As to copying from US government sites, I appreciate your point of view.  I would have said the same thing a few years ago.  But now I'm uncomfortable with any view of US government work that is other than the fact that we, as taxpayers, own it and paid for it.  No attribution is required for that.  If we hired and paid someone to write something for us, we would not have to attribute the work to him.  Ditto for US govt. works.  Indeed, I even filed a law brief once opposing an attempt by someone to prevent copying of a legal requirement.  We own laws, we own court opinions, and we own US govt works.  (Students aren't graded on this copying, by the way.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 18:15, 26 October 2008

frisbee

Please provide this site with an entry for frisbee. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --Huey gunna getcha 17:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Aw, I wanted frisbee. :-( -- Rob PommerRob Pommer 17:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll get right on that. --Hsmom 20:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Handy Hints

Here are a few examples of handy techniques. To make more sense of them, click on "edit" to see the code that produced these examples.

How to strike out text: Put <s> in front of the text, then </s> at the end of the text.

  • Example: How to <s>strike out</s> text.
  • Result: How to strike out text.

How to add references/citations: Put <ref> Title of Reference [URL of reference] </ref> The title can be put after the URL also, but it looks nicer in the reference section when it is put before the URL. The title will not be seen with the text, it will only appear in the references section if there is one.

  • Example: <ref>Conservapedia Main Page [http://www.conservapedia.com]</ref>
  • Result: (See the References section below.)[1]

How to add a reference section at the end of an article: Put == References == to create the heading. Then on the next line put <references/>. Every page that includes citations should have a references section at the bottom.

  • Example:

== References ==

<references/>

  • Result: See below, at the bottom of the page.
  • Result: (See the References section below.)[2]

How to add a request for a citation:

  • Add {{fact}} after the section that needs a citation.

References

  1. Conservapedia Main Page [1]
  2. Conservapedia Main Page [2]

Fan mail

I like your approach and your comments. I was neither homeschooled nor have I homeschooled my kids, but I was drawn to this site because I was intrigued by the idea of its being a resource where high-school-age kids could learn by writing articles, and by the idea of a resource aimed at that age group. The site has, um, multiple facets and that doesn't seem to be its most conspicuous facet, but I think it's still there, and I try to write with that audience at least partly in mind. Dpbsmith 09:54, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, you're cool :) (what he said, plus more) Human 22:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Billy Sunday

Tooting my own horn... Billy Sunday was on the requested articles list, so I wrote it, and I found the topic quite interesting and think the article came out well. Since you'd said you enjoyed Mother's Day, I thought I'd mention this one, too. Dpbsmith 08:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Theory of evolution

If you want to help with the references, please write it and paste it in my talk page. I will improve the article with your name in the summary.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:31, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Engineer

Please see: Engineer --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:24, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Feminism

Feminism has been unlocked. DanH 21:46, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Invitation to join Wikiproject:News

Hsmom, since you have suggested grammar fixes to news items in the past, you are invited to sign up as a member of Wikiproject:News. Review the Guidelines.
Your grammar suggestions have been very helpful. I think they would be more helpful if you made grammar fixes to the articles BEFORE they're posted to the Main page. --DeanStalk 17:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

May I just say...

...that I find all of your edits on Talk:Main Page to be absolutely lovely and helpful. They are probably the most informed, level-headed and intelligent suggestions and viewpoints I've seen on here for a while. Many of the tenets you seem to promote in your posts have gotten me blocked here many times, however, but keep up the good work:) Harbinger 13:13, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Scabies article & Plagiarism

I could be wrong, but wouldn't the CDC info. on health issues be considered public domain? There's no copyright information on the website as far as I can see, so it should be fine to copy the information word-for-word as long as it is noted that is how the information was obtained and a link provided to the CDC page. Jinxmchue 22:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, yep. Here we go: Public domain: "Two examples of material in the public domain are United States government works (technically the copyright is held collectively by the American public)..." The CDC would fall under that. Jinxmchue 22:33, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

This covers other edits you have made (e.g. Tourette syndrome article). Jinxmchue 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

It was not at all clear in the article that the entire thing had been copied word-for-word from the CDC site. If you are quoting long sections of text, you need to show that with quotation marks or other formatting to make it clear which parts are quoted and which parts are original. While the CDC site was named as a source, it was not indicated that the CDC page had been lifted word-for-word. In addition, a good article will draw upon several sources. Also, just because a site doesn't have a copyright notation does not mean it is in the public domain (although I agree that government works are probably public domain). Bottom line - would you accept this kind of work from a student? I wouldn't. It's dishonest. --Hsmom 22:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I agree, but I think there is a better fix than simply removing the information completely. Seems like overkill. Jinxmchue 22:42, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
I'll see what I can do with them. I need a project anyway. Jinxmchue 22:44, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, the better fix would be to either quote the entire thing with proper attribution (which is still not ideal, IMHO), or re-write each of the articles. If you have time, go for it. I'm somewhat concerned, however, that there may be more medical articles that have been plagiarized. --Hsmom 22:48, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Take a look at the scabies article now. As long as the medical articles are categorized, it should be easy to check them all. Other than that, I don't know if there's a way to check which pages link to websites like the CDC. But like I said, I needed a project, so I'll do this. Cheers and God bless! Jinxmchue 23:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Hmmm. Taking the info from another site and rephrasing it sentence-by-sentence doesn't really improve things. It certainly wouldn't fly in a decent high school class. If the article includes only information from one other site, I think it's better to just go ahead and quote it, making it clear that it is quoted (by using quotation marks, etc.) and properly citing the source. Then it's clear that you are not trying to pass someone else's work off as your own. Ideally a minimum of information will be quoted, with the reader being encouraged to read the rest of the original information at the original source. You might enjoy this lovely article about plagarism.[1] --Hsmom 01:02, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Do you think it'd be a good idea to create a template to flag articles suspected of (or known to be) plagiarism? Corry 23:12, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes, after thinking about it a bit, I think that such a template would indeed be helpful. Of course, ideally the article would be fixed, but people don't always have the time to completely re-write an article when they notice it has been plagiarized, so using the template would be a quick option. I assume that would then generate a list of articles with suspected plagiarism? That would be useful too. --Hsmom 23:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Mex

Thanks. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:32, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Citations

This was placed in the reason line when you inserted the "fact" template in Elephant: Could we at least get a credible citation for this? 'Cause it's word-for-word from another site. Which would be plagiarism. Which is deceitful and morally wrong. I agree with you that plagarism is morally wrong, but I've also noticed you placed a lot of similar lines in articles that you've identified as plagarism without even telling us where they came from at all. If it is plagarism, show us the source so it can be removed. Karajou 10:33, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

In most of the cases I've found (and I'm beginning to suspect there are a horrifying number of plagiarized articles here), I've re-written the article to include the source, to provide proper attribution, and to minimize the amount of material lifted from any one source. In this particular case however, I Googled the sentence from the article and found an abundance of sites which included the sentence word-for-word. The first several sites I reviewed were not credible sources and thus were not appropriate to cite. I did not have time to review all of the potential sources and determine whether there was a credible one or not. I hope that whoever put this sentence in the article in the first place did indeed get it from a credible site - hopefully they have this article on their watchlist and will provide the source. If not, someone else will have to either find a source or remove the sentence. --Hsmom 10:50, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
If you see something that is plagarised, and it's clear that it is, immediately remove it. Go to the talk page, explain what you did and provide the source where it came from. The point I made above is that anyone just cannot say that such-and-such is plagarized without stating the source; all that would be is "my word against your's". If the article is public domain and has no attribution tag at the bottom or a statement such as "text incorporated from...", cite that on the talk page as well. Karajou 12:11, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
<edit conflict>Thanks - I'll try to promptly remove any plagiarism I find, and I'll be careful about noting the source in my edit comments. Frankly, I often don't have time to discuss each one in detail on the talk page - I've added the notes below that should cover most situations, and I'll try to make the edit comments clear. One question - what is to be done about images that have no information about their source? I've come across several articles with pictures taken from another site without attribution, but I'm not sure how to address this. Shouldn't all images include the source and some kind of statement as to their copyright status?--Hsmom 00:18, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
There are a few things here that you're possibly unaware of for the moment. The first thing is that all intellectual property created by indivuduals working directly for the U.S. government is public-domain; we can use them here as per this page: [3]. But they have to be attributed as to where it came from, and the tag below has to be used on the page with the main source placed within it. Another reason this public domain stuff is here (such as the several bird articles your deleted) is to provide a guide for the editor to make improvements and/or additions that are just not in the original.
Pictures must be treated the same way; all should have a licence tag on it; all must identify exactly who created it, the year it was created; who or what entity owns it, and whether or not it's public domain. Because we have so many images on the site it would not be possible to go through and check every one. What you could do is to go to the image talk page, find out who uploaded it, and remind that person that the copyright or other is in question and corrections need to be made. See Fair use for further details, and you can also go to user:Karajou/tag template for more examples.
Copyright Details
License: This work is in the Public Domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
Source: File available from the United States Federal Government [].

Here's some examples that I did with regard to some of your questions regarding proper attribution:

  • Photos that are public domain and/or U.S. Government: [4][5][6][7][8]
  • Articles from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, U.S. State Dept, Naval Historical Center: [9][10][11][12]

Thanks! I really like your templates - they are very nice. I will take a look at all of your examples, though it may take a few days to go through them. I have been here for a while but I am definitely still learning!

  • [13] - Unfortunately, I do have some concerns about this example. This article states at the bottom that "Article incorporates some text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, a work in the public domain." Unfortunately, I don't think this is adequate. When you quote from another source, you need to indicate which text is quoted, either with quotation marks or by indenting the quoted text. (This is especially important in a wiki, because later editors need to know which text is quoted and which is not so they can edit accordingly.) You also need to include a reference tag - the statement at the bottom is a good one, but it should be put in reference format. If the source is on-line, and this one is, then you need to provide a link to the source - there is no link in this article to the source material. And ideally, you need to provide an in-text reference, like "According to the US Navy Historical Center's Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, ...". I also noticed that there is information about the picture on the source page that was not included on the Conservapedia picture page: "Grunion (SS-216), off Groton, Connecticut, 20 March 1942.", and "USN photo # N-0000X-001." I think it would be wise to note this on the picture page, so that users know as much as possible about the photo.

Government articles are a great place to look for basic information when you're writing a new article. However, an article that consists solely of several paragraphs of information taken word-for-word from another site is plagiarism, even if the source article is in the public domain. (Something can be plagiarism without being a copyright violation. Everything that is legal is not necessarily ethical.) When writing a new article, the best approach is to look at a variety of sources, and integrate the information (of course including citations) into an original article. It is more work, of course, and takes longer, but it results in a better article and avoids any problems with plagiarism. --Hsmom 16:15, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Response

If at all possible, can we have an expectation of you improving the articles after you remove the plagarism? You left this line in one: "According to the US Geological Survey, Double-crested Cormorants are seabirds." A line like that belongs in Dick and Jane, not here. Karajou 00:14, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, I didn't want to leave absolutely nothing on the page. I understand that it's annoying when what appeared to be a very nice article is removed. However, once discovered, we cannot let plagiarism remain. I honestly don't have the time (or the background) to research a large number of seabirds and write articles about them. I understand that the stub that I've left is not ideal. However, it is accurate and includes a reference, in-text attribution, and quotation marks around the quoted material, which is more than can be said for what was there before. I didn't plagiarize the article in the first place, and I'm afraid I can't take responsibility to undertake a total re--write. Hopefully another editor will have the time and knowledge to do so. --Hsmom 00:27, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
It's just a minor pet-peeve; I've hated Dick and Jane since the second grade! Karajou 00:36, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I think they're kind of cute! But I do know what you mean - you were probably reading way beyond the Dick and Jane level by second grade and they probably made you read it anyway! --Hsmom 16:15, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

About my Plagiarism Edits

Plagiarism is the act of passing someone else's work off as your own. It is deceitful and thus morally wrong. I have been finding many pages which include plagiarism. In some cases, I will not have the time and/or the expertise to re-write the article, nor will I have the time to provide a detailed explanation on the article's talk page. Nonetheless, plagiarism should be removed promptly. Since I won't have the space to provide details about plagiarism in my edit summaries, I am providing further information here. In general, I will deal with plagiarism I find by:

  • Removing the plagiarized material.
  • Including the apparent source of the material in my edit summary.
  • Including "see my talk page" in the edit summary (if there is room).

I consider the following situations to be plagiarism:

  • Material that has apparently been copied word-for-word from another site, without attribution of any kind.
  • Material that has apparently been copied word-for-word from another site, without quotation marks indicating which material is a direct quote. (Often, this includes articles which consist entirely of several paragraphs of information taken from a single source.)
  • Articles consisting solely of large amounts of text copied from a single source.
  • Material that has been paraphrased from another site without attribution.

Note that:

  • When you copy information word-for-word from another source, you need to both indicate which text is quoted (by using quotation marks or setting it off from the rest of the text in blockquote form) and provide a citation using reference tags. Ideally, you would also provide in-text attribution (e.g. "according to so-and-so").
  • A citation, quotation marks, and ideally in-text attribution need to be provided even if the document from which you are quoting is in the public domain. If you quote from a public-domain source, such as a US government agency's web site, you need to show where the quote came from. The reader needs to know where the information originally came from.
  • If you paraphrase information from another source, you still need to provide a citation. Obscuring the source of the information by paraphrasing is not an appropriate way to get around the need for citations.
  • Large sections of text should not be copied, even if a citation is provided and quotation marks are used. For example, it is not appropriate to create a Conservapedia article about a particular bird or animal by copying an entire article about the creature from another web site, even if you cite the web site as a source.

An online encyclopedia written as a wiki is not particularly useful if references are not cited. Students who use any wiki encyclopedia should not rely on it as a primary source for their work; at best it provides a starting point for further research. Because of this, it is especially important to cite sources. Students need to be able to follow up on what they read here, and to verify the information by reading the credible sources we provide. It is important for them to understand where the information came from - who did the study or wrote the opinion or what-have-you - so that they can bring into their understanding of the information any inherent bias or point of view the original authors may have. In addition, citing sources helps to minimize errors and helps readers to quickly identify information that may have changed or been updated since the article was written. --Hsmom 11:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Can I cut-and-paste a whole article from another site?
I believe that this would be unethical plagiarism. You can quote a snippet of information from another site - just be sure to include quotation marks (or set it apart from the text) to indicate which words are yours and which came from the other site, provide a reference (including site title, author, URL, and ideally date of retrieval), and ideally provide some in-text attribution. However, just putting quotation marks around the entire section does not make it ethical to copy large amounts of text from a single source. It is unethical to take an article written by someone else on another site (especially a commercial one), and copy the entire thing into an article here. When you do this, you are taking traffic away from the original site. On a commercial site, the author (or the site owner) makes an income from their writing via the ads on the site. The income is usually based on the number of pageviews and other site statistics. When you copy the entire article here, you eliminate the need for the reader to click through to the original site, thus depriving the author of appropriate compensation for their work. It's stealing, and the original author is losing income because of it. Even if the site is created by a government agency, and therefore is in the public domain, when you take traffic away from their web site, they lose pageviews, which ultimately could affect their funding and in turn the existence of the writers' jobs. Remember, the government agency is employing writers and in some cases photographers to actually create the content on their site. The appropriate way to use another author's material is to quote part of it, with a reference to the rest. You might say "Author Jane Smith, in her article This and Such, argues that "whatever the quote is". <ref>Jane Smith, ''This and Such'', retrieved 01/01/08 [URL]</ref> As a basic guideline, if you are cutting and pasting something without integrating the material into the existing article, then you are probably plagiarizing. --Hsmom 15:56, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Already noted

I refer you to this exchange by a troll and the founder of this website:
== Copied material? ==

With the sourcing of arthritis, arthralgia, etc... I am curious as to if this conflicts with the first Conservapedia commandment: # Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work.

While this appears to be in the public domain, what value does it have here besides pumping up the page count? These pages are often orphans - nothing linking to them, and no links from them. If this is just a start for more complete articles, do you think that the ongoing contest should be adjusted to make an improvement of existing articles worth more than creating another article that is similar in quality? The value of a wiki is in the interconnectivity of the articles - you go from one to another to another and browse and read rather than hitting on and ending there to do a new search. --Mtur 21:48, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:We paid for work on government websites. It's ours already. It's not just public domain, but it is also bought and paid for by the public. So it's fine to copy unbiased material from such sites. Of course the entries can and should then be improved. But it helps having a start, and having a succinct explanation.--Aschlafly 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Emphasis added
END QUOTE
This was found here.
I'm posting this to save you trouble both by trying to find plagiarism of .gov websites and to avoid getting "in dutch" with the Owner. Marge

Paragraph quote

Is {{cquote}} template preferable to <blockquote>? --LiamG, 12:35, 11 October 2008

I am not an expert in wiki markup, nor am I well-versed in Conservapedia's style standards. I'm still learning, and I'm putting notes about what I learn on my user page, in part to remind myself how to do things. I think either of the two approaches are basically fine. Personally, I like the way cquote shows the big blue quotation marks, which make it very clear that the section is a quotation. Using blockquote will set the text apart, but you've got to include some words of attribution before the quote (which of course you should do with the cquote too). I think cquote is less confusing if multiple paragraphs are quoted, because it's clearer where the quote starts and ends. But again, I'm still learning, so there may be an even better approach out there! (I'll add how to blockquote to my list - thanks for the reminder.) --Hsmom 15:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
My personal view is that cquote should only be used to draw special attention to a particular quote rather than encapsulate a whole article. It tends to be overused in a lot of articles and to my mind makes the page look ugly. Normal quotes are fine in the vast majority of cases. BrianCo 17:09, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
Maybe we should for this to be addressed in the "Manual of Style"? LiamG 17:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
BrianCo - I agree that a quote of a sentence or two doesn't need the fancy style of the cquote markup. Like you said, normal quotes are fine in the vast majority of cases. Longer quotations should of course be used sparingly; in my opinion only when they are really significant, in which case the cquote markup would be OK, I think. Certainly it should be the rare case that an entire article would be a quote from a single source! --Hsmom 20:01, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

surface mining

Hi, I wrote a new short article and referenced it to a mining website. If you have time please have a look. surface mine Markr 18:04, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

copying from US Gov sites

Hsmom, we own material on US government sites. We paid for it as taxpayers, and it is public domain. Word-for-word copying from them is perfectly acceptable. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, it is acceptable if it is properly indicated as a quotation and cited, right? Otherwise, aren't we being deceitful by presenting someone else's work as our own? And copying so much of a single site, word-for-word, page after page, even including the pictures, without indicating that it is quoted directly from another site, and without adding any of the Conservapedia editor's own words, seems dishonest to me. It may be legal, if the material is in the public domain, but it still seems unethical to me. I'm uncomfortable with encouraging students to do this kind of copying, when instead they could read several sites on a particular subject and then create their own nice little article about it. It takes a bit more time, of course, but not much, and they learn so much more from doing it. --Hsmom 18:25, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
By the way, I think you made an excellent point the other day in the Trainspotting discussion, but I haven't had a chance to mention it yet! Weekend laundry is taking up my time! --Hsmom 18:28, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for your Trainspotting feedback, and I certainly recognize the demands of laundry and other chores that need to be done!
As to copying from US government sites, I appreciate your point of view. I would have said the same thing a few years ago. But now I'm uncomfortable with any view of US government work that is other than the fact that we, as taxpayers, own it and paid for it. No attribution is required for that. If we hired and paid someone to write something for us, we would not have to attribute the work to him. Ditto for US govt. works. Indeed, I even filed a law brief once opposing an attempt by someone to prevent copying of a legal requirement. We own laws, we own court opinions, and we own US govt works. (Students aren't graded on this copying, by the way.)--Aschlafly 19:15, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
  1. [14]