Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

While reviewing, I saw a lot of tag wiki edit suggestions. I did some checks and most of them are 100% literally copied from other sites.

Most are in the first few google entries.

But unfortunately most got two approve votes later on.

For tag wiki and excerpts it is quite simple to google for the tag to find if it is a literally copied piece of text. But maybe we need a google it button from within the review page, or even an automated duplication detection?

Example from source

share|improve this question
AFAIK, every Wiki article starts with some copypasta from a reliable source (not sure if that's the case for SO tag wiki's, but should apply as well). – Fabrício Matté Jul 26 '12 at 5:57
You can quote, but you have to include the source. – Toon Krijthe Jul 26 '12 at 6:01
Absolutely right, I see the example edit was rejected due to the lack of source. – Fabrício Matté Jul 26 '12 at 6:02
Increase the number of votes for tag wiki edits? – nhahtdh Jul 26 '12 at 6:59
@FabrícioMatté A lot of tag wikis start with copypasta, but they shouldn't. It's usually illegal and usually not the right content for a tag wiki. – Gilles Aug 8 '12 at 1:22
@Gilles Not to contradict you, but I find that a paragraph description from the own author/website is an extremely effective and objective way to give an intro to a framework/plugin/etc (and that's what I currently see in most tag wikis I've read). And apparently I fail to understand U.S. law, if something is distributed under the MIT GPL licenses, how can it be illegal to copy (let alone with the source being displayed)? I guess you meant for non-opensource stuff. – Fabrício Matté Aug 8 '12 at 8:08
@FabrícioMatté The paragraph description is often more buzzword-compliant than informative. In my experience, most of them forget some very basic information (what does the thing do? For what language? What platform does it run on?). There's no such thing as “MIT GPL”. Most free software licenses require at least attribution, and many (the copyleft-type license) require that the content be relicensed under the same term. For example, GNU GPL or FDL content cannot be used in a tag wiki at all. Wikipedia content requires a link back to WP, possible in tag wikis but not in excerpts. – Gilles Aug 8 '12 at 8:30
I see. I wasn't aware of the GNU GPL not being accepted in tag wikis. – Fabrício Matté Aug 8 '12 at 8:32
up vote 5 down vote accepted

When I see a proposed tag wiki, I can usually tell whether it was from a vendor, from Wikipedia, from Google or original to the editor. I think I can tell original content with about 90% accuracy. I google anyway to double check, but I don't feel the need for more automation.

share|improve this answer
Me too. Sometimes, it's disgustingly obvious when something is copied without attribution and I just want it out of my sight ASAP. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Aug 8 '12 at 1:53
The need for automation is that many reviewers don't check – Mark May 21 '13 at 10:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .