Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism

message: Public domain, by law, does not require attribution. Why does this page state that public domain must be attributed?
A thorough search on this guideline's history shows that this requirement was unilaterally added on June 2008 by @Franamax—a deceased editor. The requirement evolved to:
: Whether copyright-expired or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed.
The first question is why? The second question is, why is a guideline establishing a requirement? Are not guidelines principles that editors should attempt to follow rather than abide by?
IdlePheasant (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All should be cited regardless if its free or not Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is also a common practice in academic communities. As its best to always show/lead your readers to more infomation by providing a source. Plus best to prove it's not copyrighted by providing the source.-Moxy (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Plagiarism is plagiarism (even if it's not copyright violation). Wikipedia cites its sources, even if they are public domain. This lets the reader know where to go for more information, prevents bogus copyright claims against the content, and helps other editors verify the information. Kaldari (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Another good reason for providing attribution is so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is attribution of public domain established as compulsory by this guideline? 

message: After editing the plagiarism article doing some research on "Reverse Plagiarism"/"attribution without copying" it made me wonder if wikipedia had a policy on this. I assume there is probably a fair amount of false attribution in wikipedia, so reverse plagiarism is almost certainly something that occurs. It seems like there should be a formal statement regarding the activity. I had some difficulty even getting the section on "Reverse Plagiarism" added since it is a relatively unknown term without significant research or reference sources - but after considering the issue, my gut feeling is it occurs much more often than we think. (And in retrospect I feel as if I almost inadvertently committed reverse plagiarism in order to increase the validity of reverse plagiarism itself and get it added as a section to the plagiarism article)
The ease of hiding sources in books/non-digital media, or in long pdfs or articles, simply using them as "filler sources" seems to essentially be a form of reverse plagiarism, although it may also be simply false citation depending on what degree the attribution of the content is.
Anyway, just an idea that I was pondering that seems like it should be addressed. I welcome any contributions to the plagiarism article as well if anyone has any specific insight or if there is any additional research on the area.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.209.50 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse Plagiarism 

message: :See also: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 14#Template:Citation-attribution
Until the templates for discussion conversation I did not remember that  existed. There are three templates with similar but different wording and their use is different. This guideline currently states:
The wording of ,  the first is for use inside in-line citations, the latter for the references section at the bottom.
*"One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a work now in the public domain:" 
*"This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:"
 outputs the text:
*"This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain."
Both  ,  can either be place before a the text of the source. Or the source can be added as into the templates. This means that the text is usually a postscript to source. This is the standard layout in : Category:Attribution templates.
*
The problem is that  although it can preceded the citation in many cases it has been used inline and placed after the text of the source. eg:
*
I propose that a bot job is run to change all the instances of  is altered to . NB  may in many instances be text citation and not a template citation, but in either case  should come first. Where the format is  then simply change the  to 
Once that bot job is finished then  can be redirected to . Thoughts? -- PBS (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think given the nuances of the issue, and the fact that two of these templates have been part of the guideline documentation for over 10 years this is the better forum to discuss this, a point I made in the original previous TFD which closed just before I wrote this proposal. -- PBS (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal redirect  [[Template:PD-notice]] to [[template:Source-attribution]] 

message: I want to establish a consensus regarding removing CorenSearchBot from tools section. The bot is no longer active, and it has last edited almost 6 years ago. There is also no chance that the bot will become active in the future. If it does, then we can add it back to the tools for detecting plagiarism. I want community consensus before removing its name. Or, there can be another alternative as well. Instead of removing it completely, we can strike it off, and give the reason for striking it off as a comment. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 05:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC regarding removal of CorenSearchBot from tools section 

message: This is probably too silly to include in any Wikipedia guidelines, but I can imagine trolls and vandals might take full advantage of the directions:
https://www.gocomics.com/fminus/2024/03/07
— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  19:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Write in your own words 

message: “https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6ofuz1qwzji59p8fe4d78/File-03-04-2024-6-54-12-PM.txt?rlkey=z2c1uk0ovsvhnvjei1d9p5tef&dl”=“PDF” 46.222.159.247 (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDF