, , , , , , ,

Wikipedia editors seem to think that if you change a word or two in a sentence, so the sentence can’t be searched within quotes, you can fool the world demanding that you don’t plagiarize from others.

As far as I can tell, the only articles on en.Wikipedia that aren’t seriously plagiarized are stubs, the very well-written articles, and a lot of tedious articles that are written in a strict form on very limited topics, roads in the UK, small tropical storms of the mid-twentieth century.

Although I’ve pointed out copied lines and texts from Wikipedia articles, this is largely ignored on en.Wikipedia; editors see their articles written about here and whine that I’m “making mountains out of molehills.” What’s a little thievery among friends, so what if I got it completely wrong, so what if I just made up a source to back up the made-up bad science? Like the problematic WikiCup contest that encourages the creation of crap to be seen by 10,000 readers on Wikipedia’s main page, copyright violations are just one more ugly part of en.Wikipedia.

The first huge copyright problem editor I ran across was en.Wikipedia editor, User:Valich. This editor was copying and pasting into geology articles on Wikipedia. I saw a notice about him at the project page, and I began reading his articles. They are huge copyright problems. Almost every word is copied. I posted something to this effect at the copyright violation page opened for him. His articles need deleted. However, instead of removing these thefts from en.Wikipedia, the decision was made to individually check 168 articles, individually, for copyright violations. Each copyright violation check takes longer than it would take to delete, research, and rewrite the material he added. He copied much of the material from famous papers in geology, and any geology student will instantly recognize the copyright violations.

Right now, two months after the final admission that this editor copied much of his material from other sources without rewriting it or putting it in quotes, the editors have still, potentially, left major copyright violations in articles that get tens of thousands of hits every month, such as Bear (viewed 92688 times in the past 30 days) and Organism (viewed 55385 times in the past 30 days).

Bad science and thievery should be removed immediately from en.Wikipedia. Nothing should justify leaving a known copyright violation in an article and allowing it to be viewed 180,000 times since the discovery of the copyright violation in September. How does this belong on en.Wikipedia? Is it “anyone can edit,” or “anyone can steal?”

User:EnCASF has 39 plant articles being investigated for copyright violations. Each one is being painstakingly investigated for hours to clear the copyright violations. Please, just remove everything he added!

User:DrMicro has 580 biology articles being reviewed. From en.Wikipedia discussions, it appears that his copyright violations had been identified three years ago, then ignored. It appears that the plan is to individually go through these articles. What a waste of time! It would be faster to rewrite the articles from scratch. And, it appears that en.Wikipedia, while well-aware of copyright violations, has opted to just leave them on the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia editors spend a huge amount of time discussing everything; but, let’s consider this for a moment. What right does en.Wikipedia have to host known copyright violations on its website for over two months?

More later, but, note that my Reddit questions to Sue Gardner AMA, were ignored; User:SarahStierch read the questions, but also ignored them. Like the copyright violations, when en.Wikipedia editors and admins are alerted to a problem, and when the Wikimedia Foundation is alerted to a problem, they just ignore them. Sue seems to think clean up is someone else’s job; but, if you create a hostile editing environment that does not allow for editing, then why would you think it’s anyone else’s job to step into the morass you built? Why not create a neutral editing environment that is about content-creation rather than social networking?