6

I have just been doing some suggested edit reviewing and I went to "Reject" an edit. When selecting the reason for rejection I noticed a "copied content" option at the top, which has the following description:

This edit plagiarizes content from an external source without proper attribution.

I don't remember this before so first question: is this new?

Anyway, it being new or not isn't overly important, but what I am interested in is what is the definition, and when should this reject reason be applied?

  • Is there a set amount of content that must be copied to make this flag appropriate? Does it have to be the whole post that is copied?
  • Are there any particular types of source that are more qualified as copied content? e.g. Books
  • How does this apply for people "quoting" a section of a web page (or other resource) that they have linked?
  • What passes as "proper attribution"? Is a link to the source enough?
  • 1
    No, it is not new. Any edit that content that violates copyright should be rejected. Case study for you: Tag wiki edits rejected – Martijn Pieters Sep 2 '13 at 9:23
  • 2
    The point is that Stack Exchange content is licensed on the CC:Wiki license, and any content that cannot be licensed as such should be kept out. Any content that the edit suggester has no right to re-license is considered copied content. – Martijn Pieters Sep 2 '13 at 9:25
8

Essentially if the whole post is copied from elsewhere (book, site or so) and doesn't say so (you don't have to link to Wikipedia, but do have to say that's where it is from), it is copied content.

A word or two are also not usually enough for a post to not be plagiarized.

Sections of a web page are fine, so long as they are pertinent and form part of the post, not the whole thing. If one is using section, they at least put an effort in picking out and assembling them together - this is OK, so long as attribution is given.

Proper attribution - For a book - name of the book. For a site - a link is best, though not essential - it is better to have a link as it allows one to go to the source.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

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