Talk:Content similarity detection

message: The subject line of my post speaks for itself.  This needs to go!  I think I might be bold and just remove it myself now.  If you restore it, please respond on talk page.  --Jaysweet 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to the plagiarism detection article because I was looking for the commercial systems (I could not remember the name of one I was looking for--it turned out to be "Turnitin".) I could not believe that an encyclopedia article would not mention applications designed to do the task the article is about. So I went back through the History and found that the article did indeed have this information, but that it had been deleted, apparently because listing them was somehow thought to be advertising. But this would be like the Wikipedia article on Word processor not mentioning Word or Open Office for the same reason (that article, of course, does mention these and other applications). Moreover,  three of the plagiarism detection applications in the list already have their own Wikipedia articles! I've tried to restore the information about plagiarism detection applications in a way that does not appear to be advertising.Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The existence of the alternatives is supported with individual primary sources. There are other reliable independent sources which supports tuples or groups of these alternatives which lack articles. I will endeavor to add those, as well. Readers will come to this article for both research and practical information.  To refuse to allow omit information which is sourced better a little better than the rest of the article goes counter to Wikipedia's purpose. And note that the bluelinked entries in the lists have already established their own separate notability. The local refs are only to make these items sticky. --Lexein (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking forward to sourced "better".  So far, it's not TEDickey (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Working... done, pass2. Let's continue at the bottom. --Lexein (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of free and commercial alternatives is a total spam magnet, it must go! 

message: Better introductions to free-text and software plagiarism can be written, adding references to literature on relevant algorithms.
Current lists of software can be cleaned, perhaps to turn them into tables to make them more amenable to comparison.
Khondrion (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the links are internal (i.e. lead to other Wikipedia articles, such as Copyscape) or can be sourced to news coverage in a publication meeting WP:RS, they will probably be removed as non-notable. These articles attract a great deal of spam links. Flowanda | Talk 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I created this page: Comparison_of_anti-plagiarism_software following the same model of Comparison_of_reference_management_software. Please help me edit and improve it! - Pepato (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending edits 

message: Internal links to systems that are obscure outside academia should be avoided; Only JPlag and MOSS stand any chance there. 'SIM' or 'AC' are short names that are already very ambiguous and have a small impact outside academia, are more confusing than useful. An alternative is to use things like 'SID (source code plagiarism)' so that the link becomes more specific. This is what i've done with 'Moss (program)'.
Khondrion (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the others probably should be moved down into the external-links section (since there's no Wikipedia topic dealing with them). Tedickey (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notoriety of existing systems 

message: There seems to be no page on general similarity detection, either for text (natural language) or for program similarity. The classification of similarity detection for source code can be expanded into a full article. Additionally, I can't find any page on normalized compression simililarity (NCD), very popular in general similarity detection, specially in bioinformatics.
Khondrion (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related pages 

message: I don't know if there is any explicit guideline on how to sort lists of systems, specially commercial systems. Popularity would be a good candidate, but there is no easy way to measure it. Alphabetical would be OK as a default, but less informative. Suggestions?
On the other hand, since all systems in the 'source code plagiarism' section are free (whether their sites are up or down is a different matter), I removed the reference to 'free' from their list-headings.--Khondrion (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting lists of systems 

message: There appears to be no reason for repeated links for CopyTracker - the statements which Ofol makes about the page content are not supported by the actual page.  If Ofol wants to advertise it, he should provide at least a separate link which gives the corresponding information. Tedickey (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  repeated links for CopyTracker 

message: As far as I understood, there is only academic source code plagiarism: when students copy-paste code from their peers or internet rather than coding themselves for the homework/project assignment. But copy-pasting significant chunks of code is a common practice of programming and designing new programs unless software patent is infringed (Software patent debate). And also accessing and referencing libraries (compiled code) is not plagiarism. So, the questions:
* Is there a plagiarism in the source code in any of the programming languages (which are in the group of constructed languages)?
** If there is, where is the line for plagiarism in constructed languages as compared to the natural ones?
** If not, why does plagiarism in the natural languages exist if it does not in the subset of the constructed ones (programming languages)?
* How does this line of plagiarism of source code interact with the software patents (because patents do not allow even paraphrasing; they patent ideas and their implementation)?
These questions popped up when I realized that free and open source software developers do not really cite where they took the ideas from and from whom, they just implement/copy-paste an algorithm, loop, function, object
Maybe somebody in the field could help to clarify these and add references and explanation to this article. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No - there is "professional source code plagiarism" (both from commercial and open source developers), e.g., directly copying thousands of lines of code, removing copyright notices.  I'm familiar with some examples (which would not be topical), but haven't noticed anyone doing serious research (which would be topical) Tedickey (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source code plagiarism questions 

message: I've removed those additions from the embedded list of software products as lacking articles, and lacking independent reliable sources. --Lexein (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Urkund is a Swedish system, Ephorus a Dutch one. I reported on the effectiveness of these systems in 2010. I have just released a test of collusion detection systems, including systems that find collusion in program source code . I don't want to edit in my own work, but it may serve as a source for others wanting to add material to this article. --WiseWoman (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about their notability, but Urkund is used by the University of Amsterdam (it is university no. 62 in the world top, according to http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2012?page=2 ). This would make Urkund trustworthy, if not notable. I mean it is not just another software tool devised by a geek in his basement, and known only to his friends. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, both WiseWoman and Tgeorgescu. Just a reminder that we do want to locate one or two more independent RS discussing these two software packages, for them to be included in the list. --Lexein (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just published my 2013 report on plagiarism detection systems at . None of the systems are good or very good, but Urkund, Turnitin, and Copyscape come in at average, Ephorus and a number of other systems were given at least a passing grade. I'd prefer someone else edit the page, though, don't want to be thought to be tooting my own horn. --WiseWoman (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, and, duly noted. I hope you understand there will be some reluctance to immediately cite your work that you've directly advocated here. Independent reviews like yours are indeed part of measuring the relevance of other cited sources. Unfortunately, (a) the 2013 work doesn't appear to be published yet except on your own website (not yet peer reviewed), and (b) your advocacy of it puts us strangely in the same position as overciting Gipp et. al. (below): the appearance of promotion or bias or both. So we slow down a bit; it's always better to wait for research to be peer reviewed for publication in a journal or conference proceedings, and cited by others in the field. Besides, WP is not a newspaper, so timeliness regarding research topics is less important that in-field relevance as determined by others in the field.  I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, this is a new and relatively small area of research, only small due to a relatively small number of active researchers. It has periodic breakthroughs which are discussed in other research specialties and their journals, as well as popular media; growing coverage is inevitable, so we will eventually cite further work which is published. And thank you for declaring your conflict of interest, and respecting our guidelines. Mine is not the last word on the subject - TEDickey? --Lexein (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

text:  (nothing to add here) TEDickey (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urkund and Ephorus 

message: I've reverted a set of recent IP edits which were unnecessary.  The citations used in the list of software are called WP:Named references, and they refer to WP:List-defined references which are listed in full at the bottom of the article. List-defined references can be inconvenient in one circumstance: when performing section edits where temporarily viewing a reflist is desired. However, keeping lengthy citation text out of the article prose is very beneficial for readability while editing Wikitext. --Lexein (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edits 

message: The repeated citations for Gipp papers has the appearance of (self)promotional editing, particularly noticeable because none of the authors of these papers appear to be notable TEDickey (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Worth a look, but let's AGF enroute. If you're really referring to reliability, the plagiarism research field is not huge, but has active contributors which nontrivially cite Gipp et. al., according to Google Scholar. Because the article minimally depends on Gipp, and other research have not attacked Gipp as irrelevant, but have instead referred to and built upon Gipp et.al.'s work, I'd say there's very little actual promo going on, especially since I added one or two of those, and I don't know or have any association with Gipp. I felt Gipp13 was a valid citation to support CitePlag in the list of software. --Lexein (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

text: notwithstanding the noticeable amount of cites here (really, Google Scholar gives 14 items, with only the first 2 worth mentioning), there was the most recent edit which added a "first to implement" claim, which lacked an independent source.  Not to recommend removing all of those, but pruning to present a balanced view of the available sources seems in order (unless you're going to argue that Gipp is the dominant author in the field) TEDickey (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I'm not advocating Gipp et.al. over any others. We may be seeing a flurry of pubs involving Gipp, but that's not a good reason to overcite here.  Worth keeping an eye on, and awaiting further independent sources. --Lexein (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gipp citations 

message: The first reference is to http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/messages/downloadsexceeded.html — a page that simply reports that the site's download limit has been exceeded. This seems to have nothing to do with the subject. Should it be a link to a different page, and if not, what's its relevance to plagiarism detection? Wocky (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Download limit exceeded 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Natural disambiguation kept. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Content similarity detection →  – The common name of the article's topic appears to be "similarity detection" instead of "content similarity detection." "Content similarity detection" is rarely mentioned in articles on the subject, while the phrase "similarity detection" is used much more frequently. Jarble (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 June 2022 

message: This article doesn't mention sequence alignment. Is sequence alignment also a method of content similarity detection, since it consists of identifying similar substrings in two different sequences or strings? Jarble (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequence alignment