Wikipedia talk:Danny's contest/Danny's contest 1

message: Perhaps the creation date of the article should be limited? If an article was created a month ago is it eligible?  A cut-off date would ensure that the article is new but what would be the situation with substubs?.  violet/riga (t) 08:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Start date

message: : Shouldn't a barnstar or just a word of thanks be enough?  There is, of course, the trouble of mailing a T-shirt to the winner.  Peter O. (Talk) 04:32, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
:: One can always let the winner choose. -- Emsworth 16:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: General comments

message: Just a few questions, to satisfy my own curiosity:
*How were the judges selected? 
:At random by me. 
*Is there any limit on the number of articles one may submit?
:No.
*Will this contest be repeated?
:Quite possiby. Depends on my bank account, other sponsors, etc.
*Will there be any special image of a medal which the winner could display on his or her user page?
:Good idea. I will look into it. Danny 18:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Special gold, silver and bronze barnstars? --Joe D 15:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: *As I can see, there is clearly a problem with my article (and other ones). First of all, the name is not the best (should be "The Rape of the Sabine Women"), but it was picked straight from the "Wanted" list. Secondly, I beleive, this is research and compilation, but not a copyright infringment.
Satanovski 03:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody has taken the old saw of "stealing from one source is plagiarism, stealing from many is research" a little too seriously. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what you're trying to say here. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You copied it from several sources. That's still plagiarism. Johnleemk | Talk 05:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Anybody can see that you did copy the material. You just copied from multiple sources and mixed it together. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: You do not understand copyright law if you think one must make a verbatim duplicate of the copyrighted material in order to violate its copyright. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Here's some help — copyright, fair use, plagiarism. Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: In accordance with Wikipedia articles The Rape of the Sabines is not plagiarism and surely not copyright infrigement. Cyrius, read definitions!!! In my opinion, it is compilation, based on extensive research, even with more or less original idea. fair use irrelevant. Raw though, because I planned to use the week, which left to the deadline of the competition, to work on my "Sabine". Satanovski 12:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you didn't see my point, your article, the Rape of the Sabines, even if based on several sources, if you did not modify the words sufficiently to meet the standards of originality stated in copyright, it is plagiarism. And I quote from the latter article: "For instance, it is legal for a student to copy several paragraphs (or even pages) of text from a public domain book, such as Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and then directly add these quotations to his or her own paper. However if these quotations were not clearly identified as to his or her source, then the student would be guilty of plagiarism, using another writer's work as if it were his or her own." Several sentences in the article were not modified and were taken verbatim from your sources. Thus, it was a copyright violation. A compilation is a derived work, and is not original work in itself. It was not based on extensive research, because instead of rephrasing the concepts written by other authors, you took their words verbatim and threw them together. That is not research — it is mass plagiarism. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "A compilation is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." Text taken by me straight from the Copyright Office of US (Public Domain?) As you can see, "...work formed by the collection and assembling of prexisting materials...selected...or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship"  Secondly, how you get the idea, that "several sentences in the article were not modified" and "took their words verbatim and threw them together"? What "verbatim" and where "together"? Not only senteces were modified enough from feminist article to representation of Roman mithology in art works in 1400-1700, but (I hope) there is absolutely differen meaning.Satanovski 13:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop lying. Compare this and . You lifted whole sentences from the latter link. And even so, you did not credit the authors of the webpages concerned, nor even let people know you based the articles (although all you did was take sentences from separate links and throw them into paragraphs) on outside webpages. And furthermore, read the notice below whenever you edit: "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages." And even if public domain, as I said above, including whole sentences without crediting the original author remains plagiarism. If the webpages aren't public domain or under the GFDL, which we have no reason to believe, it's still a copyright violation. Johnleemk | Talk 13:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I never told that story about "The Rape of the Sabines" is my own story. I never told that I used my own recollections, or tales of my grandparents. I told that I did use about 7 different sources to write the article, including the source your are mentioning. However, I put your own sentence "stop lying" in Vivisimo - 141 hits. In regular MSN serch - 939529 hits. Did you borrow it? Now look:
*"A compilation is a derived work, and 'is not original' work in itself".
User:Johnleemk
*"...or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship."
Copyright Office, US
Who is lying? You telling "it is not", Copyright Office of US telling "yes, it is". The problem is - definition. Try to use definitions closer to its origin - will be easier to talk. Moreover, "lying" is not the best word in discussion. Lets go to basics, i.e. Webster's Dictionary:
1. Plagiarize - a)to take and pass off as one's own (the ideas, writings, etc. of another). b)to take ideas, writings, etc. from and pass them off as one's own.
2. Plagiarizm - the act of plagiarizing.
Surely, I did not use the idea of the Diane Wolfthal. When I did  use parts of her sentences (not much), does it amounts to her writings? We may check difinition for writing.  
"...if you did not modify the words sufficiently to meet the standards of originality stated in copyright, it is plagiarism". Do you remember? This is your, User:Jonleemk, definition for the plagiarizm. What the "standards of originality"? What is it? If you will use my (sorry, Webster's) difinition for "plagiarizm", you will see, that no matter how much you "modify the words", if you take and pass off as your own ideas or writings, you in trouble. If you are using "standards of originality", you in trouble again - you do not know, what are you talking about. Satanovski 16:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "whole sentences". Is "stop lying" more than one sentence? Hell, you're just being pedantic. If you have to resort to technicalities to prove your case (which would be invalidated in one of the most technicality-based places, a court of law), I don't see how any reaosnable argument can argue with you. You passed off several different authors' works as your own. You did not credit them on the page. They did not agree to let you republish their works in any form. While technically a compilation is a new, derived piece of work, it is not necessarily any less subject to copyright law than any other piece of writing. And unless all the authors from which you plagiarised placed their work into the public domain or let their work be used under any circumstances, you have broken the law by republishing it, lifting several sentences from each of their works (even the most liberal author will at the most let you republish his/her work as long as credit is given). You are resorting to technicalities. I don't give a crap whether your "work" is "original" or not, because by any standards of copyright law. How about we make this easy? You email every author from which you stole their writing, and ask them if they mind it. Note that compilations of written works need permission of the author(s) involved. Did you ask their permission? If not...I'm tempted to tell you to [expletive] off, but, never mind. Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Au contraire, it is you who have presumed that the authors gave you their permission to compile their works together without even giving them credit. Johnleemk | Talk 07:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rape of the Sabines