Wikipedia talk:Editor integrity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Visitors who come here through certain links might not get the full background. Current Wikipedia policies have a blind spot on this topic: Wikipedia:Plagiarism redirects to Wikipedia:Citing sources, which devotes only one sentence to the topic of plagiarism. Wikipedia:Copyrights is mostly a discussion of the GDFL license and copyright durations in various countries - its section on copyright violation presumes that readers already know how to identify copyright problems. This proposal would become Wikipedia's equivalent of a university academic honesty statement. Obviously, as of this writing, it needs editing and input. Respectfully submitted, Durova^Charge! 01:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the creation of this essay

I created this essay based on a discussion at the Village Pump at the direction of User:Durova as suggested here: [1]. Perhaps this will eventually rise to the level of a guideline; if not, other editors should still feel free to improve it or add comments to the talk page. What do y'all think? --Jayron 32 05:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My cut/paste

I've added the draft version I've been working on. It's substantially different in tone and direction because I envisioned a proposed guideline rather than an essay. Durov a^Charge! 06:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing sections

Two of the most important sections haven't been written. Currently, Wikipedia has no project space page devoted to either issue from the practical perspective of an editor who wishes to understand and respect these concepts. Wikipedia:Plagiarism redirects to Wikipedia:Citing sources, which devotes only a single sentence to plagiarism. The rest of the page discusses technical matters such as Harvard referencing and Wiki markup. Wikipedia:Copyrights devotes most of its space to the nature of GDFL licensing and copyright duration in various countries. One short section discusses what to do about copyright infringement at Wikipedia without defining what copyright infringement actually is. The effect of these gaps is that editors who do not understand these principles and wish to abide by them cannot learn how to edit appropriately from a search in the Wikipedia namespace. Durov a^Charge! 06:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Draft introduction

Rather than post this to the project page I'll post this part here:

Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to respect the integrity and intellectual property rights of the sources they draw upon when they create and improve encyclopedia pages. This includes avoiding plagiarism, respecting copyright, and presenting appropriate citations. Durov a^Charge! 06:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dig it! I say go ahead and add it. You might want to add something about misrepresentation of citations, such as "assure that the wikipedia text accurately represents the cited text" or something like that. --Jayron 32 06:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, keeping this simple for starters and just doing the cut and paste. When you think of a good tweak for that part you want go ahead and change it. I already tried several phrasings for the end of that statement. Can't say I've nailed it yet. Durov a^Charge! 07:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the new sections

The problem with some of the information you addedis that it is a rehash of the information on WP:CITE and WP:RS, which is what you said you are trying to avoid. If it is undesirable to have Wikipedia:Plagarism redirect to WP:CITE then it is also undesirable to merely rehash the later in a rewrite of the former. IMHO, the issue should be in creating a guideline for editors, admins, and beaurocrats to deal with academic dishonesty in the same way that guidelines exist for dealing with vandalism. How to format a citation is largely a style issue, and is covered adequately elsewhere. Making editors aware of the importance of citing their additions, and the consequences of a blatant, willful failure to do so, or to misrepresent sources in a dishonest way, is what I think the essay/guideline/policy here should be about. Still, i do like the stuff you added about NPOV and incorrect use of citations. That is what I was getting at here. We need to get many more people involved here so we can see what concensus is on this issue. --Jayron 32 06:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that's one reason I was still toying with it. There's also Wikipedia:Attribution in progress that may replace those. The summaries, particularly the NPOV part, do reproduce a bit. Yet I don't think I've seen any other page deal specifically with how to edit a previously cited passage or how to change a URL in a footnote. I think the draft I posted could use a little trimming. Durov a^Charge! 07:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of tag to Proposed Guideline

Go ahead and change the tag. My goal was that this would become a proposed guideline. I did not think I had the cache' to make quite THAT bold a move. My labeling this an essay was merely humility on my part. If the goal is to eventually make this a guideline, change the tag as such. --Jayron 32 06:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I suggest we keep this low profile for a couple of days to reconcile with other namespace pages. Durov a^Charge! 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, gotta look up the template. Maybe it's better to leave this an essay until it's ready for prime time. Durov a^Charge! 08:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

I had started to draft a statement and thought better of it: problem is that although I took a course on this topic in graduate school I'm not a lawyer (I studied writing) so I'm concerned about whether it's appropriate for me to write this. I'd like to present a practical how-do-I-proceed-safely description and debunk some common myths such as the notion that it's okay to alter some specific percentage of words from a single source. Durov a^Charge! 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be lawyers to set forth reasonable expectations of copyright infringement. The Principle is: If you didn't write it, YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT. I always remember an interview I heard on NPR dealing with music piracy, and other copyright issues. The interviewee said, of music copyrights, something like this: (I am paraphrasing, but you will get the idea): "Imagine if you destroyed all of the recordings of a song, destroyed all of the sheet music, destroyed any record of the song existing. Now, what would you have left? There would the tune. That thing you could hum, people would recognize it as the same song. That is what we (the copyright holder) own." Not sure what that all means, but it lends a certain perspective on copyright and plagarism... I will take a stab at some preliminary writing. Let me know what you think. --Jayron 32 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good start. I think in general this guideline needs a lot of trimning for space, yet I'd like to address specific common myths such as the contention that song lyrics aren't copyrighted. There's a related rumor in wide circulation that changing some specific percentage of words means something is no longer copyright violation. You said as much in other words - should we add an example? Durov a^Charge! 06:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as an interested layperson (not a lawyer, not a specialist in copyright), here are some general principles in U.S. copyright law as I understand them:

Copyright applies to the fixed expression of an original idea. If I write a new diet book, compose an email with my plan for spelling reform, or record myself playing the harmonica, "fixing" occurs when I set pen to paper, or save the word processing file, or create the "phonorecord" (audio recording).
There's no requirement that I add "copyright 2006 OtherDave," though that notice can provide me with additional remedy in the event of infringement. The fixing of the original expression is what grants the copyright.
Copyright does not apply to facts. Thus, I could consult works of other people to find, say, the dates that Winston Churchill gave ten specific speeches. The dates are facts, and I can use those facts without infringing the copyright of those who created those works.
In general, the government of the United States does not claim copyright in its publications. This differs from practice in some other countries (e.g., "crown copyright" in the United Kingdom).
In the case of phonorecords (audio recordings), there may be several copyrights at work. Take an album of songs. You could have: (1) the composer's copyright for a specific melody and any lyrics, (2) a performer's copyright on the performance, (3) the producer's or label's copyright on the compilation of works making up the album.
Copyright can apply not only to text, images, and phonorecords, but to other creations such as software, architecture, and sculpture. (As someone noted, Tickle Me Elmo is "sculpture.")
Ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted. You may have the idea to create a cookbook in iambic pentameter. If you write such a book, your original expression can receive copyright protection, but someone else could then write a management-principles book (or even another cookbook) in iambic pentameter. (This explains the tsunamis of cookbooks, management advice, and diet books.)
All works published in the U.S. prior to 1923 are in the public domain (thus, are not protected by copyright).

(Much more at the Copyright Office's FAQ page.)

— OtherDave 13:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need more eyes on this proposed guideline/essay

I enjoy working with you, Durova, but we need to get more people involved in editing and commenting on this. How do you propose we get the word out about this page? --Jayron 32 07:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm more or less caught up on sysop chores I'll do the same things I did for WP:DE. Thanks for taking the initiative. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 00:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Left notices at Community Portal, Administrators' Noticeboard, Village Pump Proposals, and Requests for Comment. Upgraded template to proposed guideline. Durova^Charge! 00:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

My biggest problem with this is that the author seems to think Wikipedia is capitalized "WikiPedia". (It's not.)

My second criticism would be that it fails to significantly define what original thought is, despite its consistent use of the term. It says we don't publish it, but it doesn't say what original thought is. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 00:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that while I was running a copyedit of the proposed guideline. That should be fixed now. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The current draft is cobbled together from two different editors' drafts. Good comment about original thought. Durova^Charge! 00:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Editor_integrity

A thread worth watching. Durova^Charge! 01:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two problems with the text

Two issues with the current draft:

The entire "Collaboration at Wikipedia" section is founded on the bizarre premise that Wikipedia contributions are free from copyright; they are not (with the exception of those editors who choose to release their contributions into the public domain). More importantly, attempting to draw the distinction that only people "outside of Wikipedia expect to be credited for the work they do" is incorrect, as the GFDL explicitly requires that Wikipedia contributors be properly credited (that being one of the main restrictions that it imposes on material licensed under it).
Why the requirement that people adding sources leave notes "BOTH on the article talk page, and on the talk page of the user in question"? Unless there's something unusual about the circumstances, I don't see anything wrong with simply adding a source and leaving no notes at all; all this will do is make the lives of those who add sources more difficult, with seemingly little benefit.

Aside from that, this seems pretty decent (if a bit alarmist—"A single unsourced statement may not be academic dishonesty" indeed!). Kirill Lokshin 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason for the second one was to help really new users learn how to add sources (e.g. {{needsource}}), not to warn them. As for the GFDL requirements, they are much looser than the copyright most people are familiar with, but what you bring up is a valid point. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rights

"It is their right to be credited for the work they do; and it is our duty to do so."

Under which legal system and where?.Geni 02:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a more appropriate wording. Durova^Charge! 02:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"People who do the work like to be credited and it is useful to do so."Geni 02:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not really the point here, I think; maybe something more like "It is thir expectation to be credited for the work they do; and it is our ethical responsibility to do so"? The issue is more about ethics and integrity (particularly insofar as attribution is concerned) than about legal rights and obligations per se. Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethical? Which ethical system would this be?Geni 03:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The one advocated by every university, professional organization, style guide, etc. that I know of? I'm not aware of any group involved in publishing that doesn't consider it unethical to use others' work without crediting them. Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

start with the uk goverment.Geni 08:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Geni, you appear to be attempting to alter longstanding convention unilaterally. You haven't offered any supporting evidence for the claim about the UK government so I can only speculate that it falls into a common category with other organizations who, as a contractual matter, enter into an agreement with employees that works created on the job are the property of the employer. That is fundamentally different from the radical notion that people could claim authorship of existing works in the public domain. If you wish to promulgate such an idea, Wikipedia is not an appropriate testing ground. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah you must have missed the fuss over "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation" of course we then have the various historical cases shakespeare ah ha aquired ideas from all over the place. Never heard he gave atribution. More recently we have Mrs Beeton. I haven't run across any records of contempory complaints about her activities.

You talk of ethics. If it is a matter of ethics then you must be able to logicaly support your position from an intial set of agreed axonims. Otherwise it is a matter of morality and you have no right to expect other people to accept your system of morality.Geni 00:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Geni, several editors have attempted to explain this to you. From the tone of your posts you don't seem to realize how radical, experimental, and damaging that would be. If you wish to advocate such a position then the burden of evidence is on you: find an academic honesty statement at an institution of learning anywhere that says it's acceptable to buy a term paper. Find a philosophy professor who earned tenure for deft plagiarism of Fichte. Durova^Charge! 14:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Radical? Does encarta name it's authors? Does it mention that much of it's content was originaly taken from Funk and Wagnalls? Does the encyclopedia britannica name it's authors? giving credit would appear to be something of a radical inovation in the field of encycopedia writing. Experimental? People have being nicking creation myths off each other of thousands of years. I think that is enough to move us beyond the experimental stage. Damaging? We get by. I'll start looking for en example when you find an example of a newspaper fireing someone for crediting a photo to AP or Getty rather than the person who took the photo for those agencies. We are creating wikipedia. Not dissrubuting marks for term papers.Geni 18:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll bet $100 against a box of stale doughnuts that the publishers of Encarta copyright their work. I'll also bet that at least in the U.S., people who write specific articles for Encarta are either employees of the publisher (in which case they have no legal claim to rights in that work), or else have a contract in which they agree their writing is a "work made for hire," a legal term of art through which they've agreed to give up any right to the work. — OtherDave 13:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

err we are not talking about rights under copyright. People appear to be proposeing a second set of rights which have nothing to do with copyright.Geni 16:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(arbitrary outdent) If that's your impression of plagiarism then I can begin to see where you're coming from. I studied writing in graduate school and I can assure you that none of those examples are plagiarism. They include bylines and works for hire and derivative works - all ethical and customary in their way (although sometimes not the type of contract a writer prefers to accept). If you're curious about the details ask at my user page. Regarding this thread, though, I'm chiefly curious where you acquired these ideas about plagiarism: was it from this proposal or somewhere else? If that's the way you read this page then it needs more revising than I had foreseen. Durova^Charge! 03:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not my ideas. I'm simply applying Reductio ad absurdum to the claims on this page in order to falsify them.Geni 16:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the points I'd like to see this article express boils down to this: many months ago - far too far back to dig for page diffs - I was doing some Wikihousekeeping and discovered a page that was an uncredited cut-and-paste from a text at Gutenberg.org. Obviously that has nothing to do with copyright but it's still plagiarism. It's pointless to assert that the original author would like to be credited: the original author is long dead. Nonetheless, it's clearwater plagiarism to pass off a dead person's writing as one's own. If Wikipedia does anything less than reject such behavior outright then I'd like to show you a brilliant monologue I just finished typing for a play I think I'll call Hamlet. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

To be honest, I feel that there are to many "must"'s in it. Combined with the additions to the banning policy it mentions, it reads to me more as a policy than a guideline.Crimsone 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What specific instances do you find objectionable? Durova^Charge! 03:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I was somewhat tired last night and may have gotten it wrong. A few things seem to have changed since then also. Really, my main issue now is only that of blocking policy. Is it right for a proposed guideline to contain what seem to be additions to the blocking policy?

I'm also concerned about the specifics of it - "When confronted with blatant evidence of dishonesty, and assuming that ample warnings have gone unheeded for considerable time, the user should be blocked or banned" - is this not going to result in a whole lot more of all manner of trumped up accusations from either sides of content disputes?

That of course, and the fact that the article mentions Harvard referencing or the Chicago Manual of Style, but doesn't appear to make any mention of the cite system on wikipedia, or pointto/explain how to use it. Crimsone 11:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:DE discussed specific blocking and banning when it was in the proposal stage. I'd welcome any alterations that would insulate this proposal against exploitation. Yet I do agree that instances which are demonstrably deliberate should be liable to the same set of remedies as other violations. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal name

One idea I like that's grown out of the WP:AN thread is to rename this proposal Wikipedia:Editor integrity. I wasn't entirely happy with "Editor honesty" when I proposed the page and the change would probably capture the spirit better. Comments? Durova^Charge! 02:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

S, sounds much better. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I change it? Durova^Charge! 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Durova^Charge! 05:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Editor integrity" or "editor honesty" are both much broader terms than the matters addressed by this proposal, which are themselves oddly heterogeneous. At the risk of sounding overly literal-minded, what's wrong with co-opting Wikipedia:Plagiarism? That way the plagiarism info is concisely contained in one document, and the 'practical matters of copyright' can be moved to, say, a FAQ for WP:CITE. Opabinia regalis 07:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly an idea worth considering and I gave that very thing some thought before proposing this. WP:CITE is already very good for what it is: a nuts-and-bolts description. The odd heterogeneity of this proposal is mainly stylistic: different parts were written by two different editors with very little cross-editing. Our goal was the same: to create the equivalent of an academic integrity statement for Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 13:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mango

Background reading for why this guideline is needed. I wound up handing out a barnstar to the editor who first spotted this problem. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

um no that would be covered by our existing copyvio policy.Geni 04:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The related user talk pages show that the editor didn't know what constituted copyright violations. The existing copyright policy does not define copyvio in practical terms. Durova^Charge! 04:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither does this page which mixes it up with plagiarism which is legal.Geni 08:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

University statements about academic integrity typically discuss both plagiarism and copyright. Durova^Charge! 15:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not a university. Anyway the claim that an anonymous entertity can plagiarise is somewhat questionable.

By mixing plagiarism and copyright together you weaken the importance of copyright which is not acceptable.Geni 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the implication that copyright is more important than plagiarism. In the academic world, plagiarism is taken very seriously (accusations of plagiarism destroy careers), while copyright is seen as a matter for lawyers. In my opinion, Wikipedia is a scholarly work, and should hence conform to academic standards. I don't know about legal matters, but moral rights seems to say that plagiarism at least somehow accepted in law.

About the proposal itself, after reading it I have no idea what it is about and to square it with #Welcome. If it is about copyrights and plagiarism, it should start with defining those terms. I'd move Sections 1-3 to the end, condense them severely, and call the page "Copyright violations and plagiarism", or something like this. I think Geni does have a point that it's strange to mix plagiarism and copyright violations, and I'd like to hear the reason for this.

I do think we should have a Wikipedia: page on plagiarism. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Very good suggestion. Durova^Charge! 13:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

under US law copyright can be a criminal offence (although as far as I'm aware every case ever has been delt with as a civil matter). Plagiarism is not. Plagiarism may end your career in certian areas. Copyright violations can result in your loseing assets you have already aquired. Plagiarism is ultimately an acedemic/press nicecity. Copyright is the law.Geni 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. Durova^Charge! 13:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section 3...

...has serious problems. I understand from a skim above that this was cobbled together from two (or more?) editors' drafts, but this section sounds awkward, out of place, and sometimes just wrong. The remainder of the information here is good to bring to light, though it could benefit from more intuitive organization.

Section 3 talks explicitly about "academic dishonesty". Wikipedia is not academia, so academic dishonesty is only relevant as an analogy. There are practices here that would not be accepted in academia (it's not uncommon here to copy public-domain texts wholesale with attribution; that wouldn't pass as your term paper for History 101) and practices in academia that are controversial here (omitting citations for basic facts in a given field).

This section also extensively conflates unsourced statements with those that are plagiarized or original research. To be honest, that's silly. I could write "The proteins Drosha and Pasha are binding partners", and that would be a very specific unsourced statement. But it isn't plagiarized (I just wrote it), and certainly isn't original research (it's quite simple to verify, from any number of sources). The example given in criterion 3 is likewise quite poor; the term "plagiarism" generally refers to the uncredited reproduction of substantial portions of a specific work, not just an uncited but originally-written synthesis of multiple other works. That is, writing "some feel George Washington was hypocritical..." would be unsourced and weasel-wordy, but certainly not plagiarism.

"Criteron 1" - just... no. Edits are edits and editors are editors. While the age and experience of an editor might affect how you approach them about their misguided edits, plagiarism and copyright violations are no more acceptable from a high schooler than from a post-graduate student. And no one here is asking for familiarity with specific citation formats.

Generally, this proposal would probably be better served by cutting this section out entirely, or at best drastically shortening and rewording it. Opabinia regalis 07:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to recent concerns

On the concerns raised by User:Geni regarding the semantic differences between ethical, moral, and legal distinctions:
- Wikipedia is a community edited project, with the emphasis on community. Any community needs to develop standards of ethical/moral/legal behavior. There are community standards of "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" with regard to behavior within the community. Regardless of whether such distinctions are ETHICAL distinctions, MORAL distinctions or LEGAL distinctions is moot. We have standards of editor behavior here, and such standards include proper research techinques. Any attempt to draw a semantic distinction around specific words to describe various shades of meaning between "NO-NO's" is just an attempt to obfuscate the issue. Intentionally integrity violation is a NO-NO. We need a clear policy/guideline/whatever that deals with this NO-NO. Again, semantic distinctions only serve to obfuscate the issue. What we are looking for here is what constitutes the NO-NO, and what the proper response to violations of the NO-NO are.
On the perceived spelling, gramatical, and semantic errors you find:
- Be Bold. Fix them.
On the problems with the section "Collaboration at Wikipedia"
- I was bold and changed the wording to something perhaps more agreeable. How does the new version sound?
On the lack of definition of original thought:
- Already a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia. A link to WP:OR is all that is needed here.
On the issues with Wikipedia's citing policy:
- Already amply covered elsewhere. WP:CITE covers this.
With regard to the use of the word academic in section 3:
- Wikipedia is a research-based venture. Standards of integrity with regard to research are long established, and include a clear-cut definition of plagiarism and the consequences for the practice therof. If it is simply a semantic problem that is hanging you up, please change the word to one more acceptable. However, the concept is that Wikipedia is research-based, and thus carries with it all of the ethical/moral/legal (see above) whatnots associated with any research-based venture.
- Also, to other concerns raised by same editor: There is a third integrity concern here, which is the intentional misrepresentation of a source; which is no less dishonest than copyvios or plagiarism. This essay/guideline/policy/whatever (see above) is a work in progress and cobled together from several places. I think perhaps we need 3 sections; Copyright, Plagiarism, and Misrepresentation; all a 3 distinct problems that all deal with integrity. Also, we need guidelines on WHAT to do when we think we have encountered integrity violations, and what the responses should be for editors and admins alike. We need to be clear that we are not dealing with honest, newbie mistakes. Just like our response to vandalism is measured and we always assume good faith, we need to do the same here. However, when faced with voluminous evidence that an editor is acting in bad faith, and continues to comit integrity violations in light of attempts to educate said editor, then education needs to cease, and discipline needs to begin. --Jayron 32 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Smokes

As an ex-editor who gave up on the game about two months ago, I just have to say: damn. Has it really come to this? See the Tao Te Ching, Chapter 57. Peace.

I'd have to agree with that. Look around: there is a lot of valuable, accurate, original, but unsourced content everywhere you look. A lot of citations are more or less CYA afterthoughts. And yet both of these facts are ways that Wikipedia progresses. In particular, I disagree with the injunction not to trans-cite a primary source when you got the fact through a secondary source. This is an encyclopedia and benefits from primary source references. I would, on the other hand, support a guideline that said "only trans-cite for basic facts which adhere to the highest standards of NPOV, and when you do, make a note to that effect in the talk page". Basic reaction: there is a need to cover these issues with a clear guideline but this is importing academic standards wholesale rather than creating wikipedian ones and thus ends up too restrictive down the line. --Homunq 05:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright versus other stuff

Since apparently some people are interpreting any mention of "intellectual property" to mean that this page need only talk about legal issues...

Why don't we remove the bulk of the copyright issues from here—a simple link to the existing copyright policy will suffice, and they do obscure much of the real point—and limit this page to discussing the other points of intellectual integrity (primarily the questions of plagiarism, proper attribution, and misrepresentation of sources)? Then we'd no longer have to deal with the semantics of the entire legal/ethical/whatever question. Kirill Lokshin 17:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two comments

Just stumbled across this proposal, & while it appears the discussion has fallen into a (hopefully momentary) lull, I'd like to make a few comments:

The title "Editor integrity" implies to me that should be a code of ethics, & a broad category of topics. To paraphrase an old but hallowed code of ethics, "First, make no actions that harm Wikipedia." One might say this should be the policy in a nutshell. If you agree with this, then it would follow that editor integrity should extend to more than worries about copyright, plagarism, and properly citing appropriate sources.
I find the example under "Chain of sources" a poor choice: the vast majority of birth and death dates are uncontroversial, & insisting that even uncontroversial facts must be cited imposes an unnecessary burden on editors. On the other hand, there is disagreement about some dates of events, & when this exists, it should be cited as well as the editor can do (ideally in the form "source X states this and these authorities defend it, source Y states that and those authorities defend it, and this third group argue other dates based on their analysis of sources X and Y").
The last point leads to another consideration, which has been voiced above. I feel that the use of "must" in this proposal should be replaced with a more nuanced use of similar words like "ought", "may" & "should". The use of "must" implies that there are no exceptions to the condition it introduces; in some cases, rigid attention to a rule is not needed for ethical behavior, only a respect for it. I'd like to note that this nuance of language is currently practiced in a number of standards, for example such as those by the World Wide Web Consortium. -- llywrch 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

reply please go ahead and make these changes. I have really "spent" myself on this essay, and am out of ideas. If you have some fresh ideas, even an idea to completely overhaul it, go ahead and boldly change it as you see it. If too many people disagree with your changes, we can easily change them back. --Jayron 32 04:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integrity and copyright

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on integrity is interesting. The history of freedom and copyright and fair use is interesting. I doubt such controversial and ambiguous concepts make for a useful guideline. WAS 4.250 20:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An AFD you should read to establish a clear need for this guideline/policy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ngangangese. The creator of the article admits lying in the article to make the article appear more notable. A clear integrity violation, and we need a clear policy on integrity to steer decisions on how to handle these situations, and also to refer people to to prevent these problems. --Jayron 32 02:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't need a policy to know how to deal with liars and anyone who does need a policy to know how to deal with liars should not be trusted to make important decisions. WAS 4.250 03:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verbosity

This page appears overly lengthy to me, and restates known issues from several existing policies. I think it should be shortened by quite a lot, actually. If I understand it correctly, it says that Wikipedia editors should strive towards integrity, and in extreme cases can be blocked if they're not. Did I get that right? (Radiant) 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. The page has been cobbled together from mine and Durova's attempt to hammer this out. Its obviously too long. It has been on my list of things to do to rewrite it. Maybe later tonight after I get through the rest of my watchlist I will get to that. --Jayron 32 03:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)