English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick

English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Copyright problems/2009 November 16

< English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Copyright problems

16 November 2009

Suspected Copyright Violations (CorenSearchBot reports)

SCV for 2009-11-16 Edit {{Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2009-11-16}}

  •   Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Cleared by MRG --MLauba (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  •   Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Massive snippage, the text was already present in the article from which this was split out, in 2005 --MLauba (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Additional material re Competency-based education

The article is Competency-based education.

The editor is User:Rgannonc

Editor MuffledThud noted issues including a copypaste concern on 14 Nov here. It is not clear to me whether MuffledThud knew there were problems, or merely suspected.

Article editor posted at the Feedback forum Wikipedia:Feedback#What_is_Competency-Based_Education.3F, which is how I became involved. The query at Feedback asserted that there were no copyright issues, and asked how to remove the warning.

Article editor removed the warnings.

MuffledThud reinstated some of the warnings, but did not reinstate the copypaste warning. I do not know whether MuffledThud is convinced there are no copyright violations, simply accepted the word of the editor, or simply chose to focus on unambiguous issues.

MuffledThud also welcomed the editor, but noted COI issues.

I looked to see if I could find evidence supporting or refuting the copyright concerns and found this online

It is not a straight copy-paste, but the WP article is clearly derived from the paper.

I copied a paragraph from each, and posted to the WP:Feed forum to see what the editor had to say. (I’m aware that some potential violations go the other direction; that didn’t seem likely in this case, but I wanted to AGF and see what the editor had to say.) While it has only been a couple days, there has been no response. I also posted my response to MuffledThud. While I did not post to the editor’s talk page, if she asked a question at the Feedback desk, it seems reasonable she should expect an answer there. I will post the Copyright problem notice to her talk page. Reasons why this isn’t a straight-forward, and I didn’t nominate for Speedy Delete:

  1. While the paragraph of concern:
Competency-based education

What is Competency Based Education?

The major premise of competency based education (CBE) is that diplomas and credentials should be awarded on the basis of demonstrated performance on competency and on results, rather than on accumulated or completed credits. In fact, CBE is often tied directly to the occupational requirements of working professionals. CBE presents adult learners with opportunities to solve the real-world problems of managers, teachers, computer programmers, nurses, engineers and others.

Comparing Institutional Approaches to Competency-Based Distance Education

What is competency-based education? Its major premise is that diplomas and credentials should be awarded on the basis of demonstrated student performance – on outcomes and results – rather than on the accumulation of credits, the number of successful semesters completed (seat-time), and adherence to campus residency requirements. CBE is often tied directly to the occupational requirements of working professionals, requiring degree candidates to solve real-world problems of nurses, teachers, computer scientists, and business managers.

seems like a clear problem, I haven’t checked all paragraphs, and I think the author used the opening almost unchanged, then moved on to more original prose. Is it the responsibility of the person looking into this to check each and every paragraph, and blank out only those with unambiguous problems? I’ve taken the route of blanking the whole article, assuming we can sort it out if the editor is interested.

  1. The editor, Rgannonc, is almost certainly one of the authors of the paper in the link (Ruth Gannon Cook). Of course, almost certainly is not the same as certainly. However, I assume that is why MuffledThud is concentrating on COI issues.
  2. While an editor using words from a paper she wrote is not in the same league as wholesale copying from someone else’s work, this doesn’t eliminate the copyright issue.
  3. One additional issue is the existence of the coauthor, Dan Eastmond. While I don’t yet know who holds the copyright on this work, he may hold a share of it.
  4. The document url is a .gov site. I’m aware that some documents published by the Federal government are automatically in the public domain, I don’t believe all are, so I don’t want to assume this is in the government domain without some feedback from an expert (that would be you).
  5. I looked for a copyright notice on the document, but I did not see one. I'm aware that lack of a notice does not mean lack of copyright.)
  6. Some people assume they own the copyright on documents they create, but this is not always the case. For example, when I submit a paper to a conference, the conference organizer then owns the copyright. I’ve personally been in the odd situation of having to write to get permission to quote myself. I don’t know how universal that rule is, but without further research, I don’t know whether Ruth and Dan hold the copyright to this paper. (Of course, even if they do, it must be properly referenced, and COI issues must be addressed.)

 Y Nothing found, deleted revisions deleted. MLauba (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Y - Copyvio text deleted, intro rewritten. — CactusWriter | needles 14:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 Y - removed copyvio text and rewrote close paraphrasing. — CactusWriter | needles 14:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 Y - Copyvio text deleted. — CactusWriter | needles 13:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Copyright_problems/2009_November_16&oldid=46306"