Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Testing/CorenSearchBot: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Link to policy in experienced templates?: not a false positive, but an actual copyright issue |
|||
Line 85:
:Looking at the example diff you linked to, it appears to me that the person who received that warning simply [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_renewable_energy_certificate&diff=next&oldid=474183319 moved the content of an existing article] to reflect the correct spelling of the organization. He/she didn't actually write the content and probably had no idea it was a copyvio. Unless I'm reading that wrong, it looks like a false positive... which is a major factor to consider with the "experienced" warning. (Case in point: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&diff=423475000&oldid=422632778 Sue got warned by it once]!) That's why we were hesitant to include links to policy pages in these warnings. The new versions follow our assumption (from purely anecdotal evidence) that experienced editors who receive these warnings either accidentally forgot to attribute a source or were a false positive – in which case, giving them a link to a policy page would seem a bit condescending. Of course, we could be wrong, and maybe the people receiving these warnings ''do'' look like they need a refresher course on [[WP:Copy-paste]]. We'll definitely dig into the data after the test ends next week and see if that's the case. Watch our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Testing/Documentation|documentation page]] for the spreadsheet with all the results (should be ready next Monday), and feel free to poke around and help with qualitative coding if you have the time/inclination :) [[User:Maryana (WMF)|Maryana (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Maryana (WMF)|talk]]) 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
::Actually, a false positive is when there is no duplication. This is a different situation, and not uncommon. CorenSearchBot detected an unattributed split when it matched a new article to a mirror of an existing article. Not all experienced users know that our content here is not public ___domain any more than content found elsewhere on the web. It's still a copyright infringement if they don't follow the licensing requirements, as this person did not. [[Wikipedia:Copy-paste]] not only talks about copying from external sites, but also talks about copying content from one Wikipedia article to another. You'll notice that the person who received [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Pgan002&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2012&month=2 that specific caution] did nothing to repair the problem. If he had simply forgotten to fix the split, surely he would have done so? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
| |||