Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duquesne Spy Ring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The subject of basis on this nom has been discussed at the village pump. The result of the discussion was that all federal government information is under the public domain, making the premise of the nom invalid. Put simply by Mangojuice: "it's free content, used properly with attribution, and the topic is certainly encyclopedic." User:Sr13 07:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duquesne Spy Ring

Duquesne Spy Ring (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Duquesne Spy Ring is a non-encyclopedic article. The article plagiarizes in its entirety a U.S. government source document. Sections of the plagiarized article have also been incorporated (without discussion) as sections into existing non-espionage articles (see SS America (1940) as an example). The article violates the first provision of Wikipedia:Five Pillars. See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, and also Plagiarism for reference. Compare article sources (#1) here and (#2) here. Source #1 is believed to be the true source of the article. Source #2 is the government source originally cited in the article's {USGovernment} citation. Source #1 is not acceptable for inclusion in Wikisource (see why here}. However, the original document released under FOIA for source #2 seen here might possibly meet the Wikisource criteria for inclusion, since it is a .pdf file copy of the original FBI document released under the FOIA.

This quality article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 9 May 2007 and K. Kellogg-Smith has been trying to get it deleted ever since. His views have already been adequately discussed on the Village pump (policy), and within other Wikipedia articles (e.g., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography). K. Kellogg-Smith has received no support from the WP community for deleting this article, nor has he offered any suggestions on how to improve this article (at one point he even went so far as to delete the links to the source documents from the article), and still he has taken this draconian step. To summarize, the consensus viewpoint of the WP community has been that: U.S. Government sources, including images and text, are a valuable resource for WP, should be used to the fullest extent, and that using the FBI material in its original form is not only appropriate, but even preferable in this case. So that we don't have to start this discussion from scratch yet again, I'm posting to this page the complete, unedited (and certainly not paraphrased) discussion recently held on Village pump (policy) --Ctatkinson 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the Village pump (policy)

Is it okay under IAR to create a Wikipedia article which is a verbatim copy of an identical article appearing on a U.S. government website, i.e., a website in the public domain?

A recently added (May 5, 2007) Wikipedia article is a Wikified, word for word copy — both text and photos — of a 14-page article which appears on the FBI’s website at http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/spyring/spyring.htm, titled Federal Bureau of Investigation, Famous Cases: 33 Members of the Duquesne Spy Ring.  The recent Wikipedia article that was copied from that FBI website is Duquesne Spy Ring. The Wikipedia article originally carried the {USGovernment} template, but did not cite the current FBI article as the article’’s source.

The word for word copying of the entire text and photos of a 14-page article in the public domain and inserting that copied article in Wikipedia seems to me (technically and ethically if not in fact) to be plagiarism, even though the work copied is in the public domain.  If it is considered to be plagiarism, what can be done about effectively flagging readers that the copied article is a direct copy from another source?  I think the text of the {USGovernment} template isn't adequate for this situation.  K. Kellogg-Smith 02:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not plagarism, so long as it's indicated that the text came from somewhere, and was not just originally written. It's best not to do verbatim copies for NPOV reasons, but so long as the source is given, it's not terrible. -Amarkov moo! 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the standard text of the {USGovernment} template isn't adequate for this situation. Rather than say "This article incorporates text from ...", it would be much more accurate to state something along the lines of "The original version of this article was copied from ..." so that readers are clearly informed of the extent of the copying. To list the FBI website as a "source" clearly understates the copying. In the context of an article or paper, this would be akin to copying passages without showing them in quotes and merely listing the source in the bibliography. Almost everyone would consider that plagiarism. -- DS1953 talk 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This bothers me... even if it is not plagiarism (ie even if we give credit to the cite where it is copied from) wikipedia should not simply copy another site. We should write original articles based on the information obtained in reliable secondary sources. I could understand basing the bulk of this article's information on the FBI site, but we should at least paraphrase it instead of copying it. I would love to flag it for improvement in some way, but I am not sure if there are any tags that apply. Blueboar 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, the article always referenced the FBI as the source of substantial content and no claim to the contrary was ever made -- in the original document a URL was provided and the reference was: "Much of this article comes from FBI documents and photos released in 1985 under the freedom of information act and in the public domain."

What does seem to be controversial is the quantity of public information re-used in this Wikipedia article. However, it is not illegal, unethical, and even uncommon for a private entity to re-issue and re-sell public information, sometimes adding value and sometimes not (e.g., National Weather Service reports and forecasts). Adding the FBIs Duquesne Spy Ring content to Wikipedia enhances the visability of an interesting topic (not controversial is that many people find this article interesting) and it is in keeping with the FBI's mission of disemminating non-classified information as a public good. Paraphrasing is the wrong approach for public content that already stands well on its own (e.g., even though a substantial portion of Wikipedia's U.S. Constitution relies on the original source, nobody would suggest that a substantially paraphrased version for Wikipedia would be more appropriate). In my view, it is better to apply an Open Source standard, like Open source governance, to all public content. Ctatkinson 10:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with transcluding public domain content into WP, as long as it is done intelligently. There have been problems with mindless transclusion of out of date sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. But as long as it is done with reasoable editorial judgement, there should not be a problem.
In this case, the FBI is an authoritative source for this type of information, and using the material in it's original form is appropriate. In fact, changing the content would need to be done very carefully, since the original form may have had substantial editorial review from experts in the subject area.
U.S. Government works are not copyrighted for good reason, and are intended to be re-used. Usually the agencies publishing material ask to be credited, and this is good editorial practice, but there is generally no legal requirement to do so. The {{USGovernment}} template gives sufficient credit--further explanation can be given on the talk page (it's probably also a good idea to note the transclusion in the edit summary as well).
I have been transcluding a lot of useful information from U.S. Government sources, including images and text. These are a valuable resource for WP, and should be used to the fullest extent. Sometimes I paraphrase where appropriate, and other times I take large blocks of text nearly verbatim. Usually the text does need some touch up to make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example: removing second person statements, and removing or recasting recommendations. You also need to watch for NPOV issues where government policy or interests may be reflected in the content. This is generally not a problem for technical subjects, but may be an issue in other areas.
Using this material is not plagiarism. The material was compiled at public expense, and is intended to benefit the public. The U.S. taxpayers generously share this information with the world. To refuse this gift would be foolish. Dhaluza 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
In this specific case, I am perfectly happy with transcluding information from the FBI site. Editors considering transcluding other text and images from U.S. government sites need to bear in mind, however, that some material may be false or misleading. Sometimes politicians lie. --Eastmain 19:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with verifiability: other users come in later and edit bits. So the notice at the bottom should more truthfully read, "Parts of this article text are taken from X, but we've no idea which parts". Whether X is the 1911 Britannica, a US government report, or anything else. Far better to either (a) quote part of X, and mark it as a quote, or (b) just include a link to X. IMHO, copying text from another site, even a public domain one, and not explicitly marking it as quoted, should be officially discouraged. Peter Ballard 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with Ballard. It makes no difference whether the text was originally written in the public domain and transcuded to WP, or if it was originally written on WP. This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" so the problem is the same either way. Your suggestion to quote the material, even if it's the whole article, does not work. Material from the 1911 Britannica needs lots of editing to make it useful, so quoting the original is pointless (and unnecessary since it is available online). This is actually the beauty of the wiki--we can improve the public domain record. Dhaluza 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

end of quoted material copied from Village pump

  • Keep. As I said at the Village pump, "In this specific case, I am perfectly happy with transcluding information from the FBI site. Editors considering transcluding other text and images from U.S. government sites need to bear in mind, however, that some material may be false or misleading. Sometimes politicians lie." This is a useful and encyclopedic article. It should be kept. Nobody owns a Wikipedia article. --Eastmain 02:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's free content, used properly with attribution, and the topic is certainly encyclopedic. Mangojuicetalk 04:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.