Talk:Duquesne Spy Ring/AfD debate (result:speedy keep)

message: Note: Now that K. Kellogg-Smith's AfD matter has been resolved, I propose moving the related portions of the discussion to an archive page. Ctatkinson 13:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

message: Note:  I've nominated this article (May 16th) for deletion for being a violation of the first principle of Wikipedia's "Five Pillars", i.e., this article is non-encyclopedic. Although it's an interesting article, it was actually written by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (with slight edits by the author).  As such, this article is a (verbatim) copy of a primary source document.   See Wikipedia:Five Pillars and Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources as the basis for my nominating this article for deletion.  Wikipedia's administrators will decide whether to retain or to delete this article.  Alternatively they might suggest changes that can be made before the article can be retained. 
To log whether you concur or oppose my nomination of this article for deletion, click on the interlink in the AfD message box, or go to the AfD log for May 17th, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 17.  For your guidance in discussing the article, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.   K. Kellogg-Smith 01:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: I have looked over the discussions on the talk pages, and I stand fast to my decision.
To begin- the article is legally not plagiarism at all. It is released under the public domain (to be specific, the Freedom of Information Act), which means the article is free content. Since no one person "claims" the information (thus "public domain"), no plagiarism is present. We are on safe ground as long the sources are attributed, which has already been accomplished.
I speedy kept the AfD because your basis of argument is invalid (no plagiarism is involved, but you say plagiarism is involved) Also, in the dicussions on the talk page, it seems that most users oppose your viewpoint on this matter.
In response to not including copies of primary sources, I believe you should also read the ignore all rules policy. The creator of the article transcluded the document to Wikipedia very well, thus my decision to "speedy keep" the article. 
I respect your personal opinion on ethics, but there is nothing legally wrong in this matter. Sr13 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD close of Duquesne Spy Ring 

message: I came across a very recent Wikipedia article (inserted within the last few weeks) titled "Duquesne Spy Ring" which is a near verbatim copy of a 14-page article with photos that's currently on the FBI's website.  I posed a question about the article on the Wikipedia:Village Pump, policy section (#35. When does verbatim copying from a government website become plagiarism?").   Both the FBI's article and the identical Wikipedia article are linked in the text of that policy question.
I have disputed the author's use of the {USGovernment} template because (a) his article is a verbatim copy of a lengthy U.S. government article, and therefore an inappropriate citation, and (b) that  U.S. government source he cited in the template is clearly not the source he used to create his Wikipedia article.  However, I haven't found any clear policy statement in Wikipedia that prohibits or even discourages extensive verbatim copying of sources in the public domain.
My question here relates directly to eleven good, A-class cryptography articles from U.S. Government public domain sources than I could easily Wifify and insert verbatim in Wikipedia.  I obtained all eleven publications at the National Security Agency's National Cryptologic Museum.  All eleven publications are U.S. Government publications.  All include the author's name, but none have copyright notices.  And because they are U.S. government publications I presume them all to be in the public domain — and can be freely copied and used.  If there's no real policy concerns by the Wiki administration about wholesale copying of U.S. government sources, how do  members of this project feel about inserting (Wikified) verbatim U.S.government cryptologic articles in Wikipedia with only the current (and IMHO inadequate) {USGovernment} template used as a source cite at the end of each article?  Do you believe it's plagiarism to do that?  Or at the very least unethical?  Is there some other template or flag that can be used to alert readers that such articles are direct copies from another source?
Don't get me wrong.  I have no intention of copying verbatim the government's articles I have in my possession, and inserting them in Wikipedia.  What I'm looking for is suggestions and guidance on what to me seems to be plagiarism — the verbatim copying of U.S. government publications — and its prevention if it's considered to be an undesireable practice in Wikipedia.
Any help?
K. Kellogg-Smith 02:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion here: do it!!  It's free content, it's probably a vast improvement on the articles in question, and once submitted, the articles can likely be improved by editing.  Watch out for WP:OR, though - are all those articles adequately sourced?  As long as we attribute the information to the source and state that it's public domain, we're covered, and the authors of the government stuff get proper credit because we'll attribute them (which we don't even have to do).  Personally, if I was one of those authors, I would be proud that my work was reaching as many people as possible.  However, I would be cautious in one regard: double check that the documents in question are really produced by the US Federal Government, not merely documents they have permission to display or whatever.  But yeah, if they really are public domain, I don't think there's an ethical concern.. but if you do, you could always write to the author and ask permission (not that you'd need to, if it's public domain).  I'm not sure about the tagging templates.  I suppose I would just begin with a "* This article incorporates text from Foo bar, a US Federal Government publication from the National Cryptologic Museum, which is in the public domain." at the end of the article.  Mangojuicetalk 03:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography 

message: Plagiarized Wikipedia article for inclusion in Wikisource?
Moved from Wikisource talk:Scriptorium
I'm about to nominate a 4,900 word article in Wikipedia ("Duquesne spy ring") for deletion because I believe the article plagiarized an identical article on the FBI's website (see at http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/spyring/spyring.htm.).  I firmly believe that Wikipedia should not be a repository for plagiarized articles.  Wikipedia deletion policy suggests that in non-copyright violation AfD cases, Wikisource should be considered as an alternative location [for this challenged article] rather than deletion from Wikipedia.  The author made some small additons to the original text, which could be viewed as enhancements per Wikisource policy.  The chief failing of the article as it appears in Wikipedia, as I see it, is that the {USGovernment} template the author initially used to justify his plagiarism was IMHO not the true source of his article, and that secondly, the {USGovernment} template is inadequate for articles that have been extensively plagiarized.  Would the author's plagiarized article be suitable for inclusion in Wikisource with only an inadequate {USGovernment} tag citation? Would Wikisource require a more explicit citation than the {USGovernment} cite?  K. Kellogg-Smith 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Wikisource:Scriptorium, Question 4.12