Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 9
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
[edit]- User talk:Mimicryworld (history · last edit) from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mimic. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please leave me a talkback template. 15:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Jafeluv (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Battle of Messines (1914) (history · last edit) from http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_messines1914.html. Theleftorium 16:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Jafeluv (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- XVI Corps (India) (history · last edit) from http://www.forum.pakistanidefence.com/lofiversion/index.php/t7640.html. Theleftorium 17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- 81 Armoured Regiment (history · last edit) from http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Units/Armoured.html. Theleftorium 17:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Rachel Carson Award (history · last edit) from http://www.womeninconservation.org/carson.html http://www.womeninconservation.org/council.html possibly other subpages. Relist from SCV; it was originally at Rachel carson award. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright concerns remain. Article deleted, left CUP notice. Note this was restored out of process by one of the contributors. I've checked OTRS, and there is as of this date no sign of permission forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- List of I Treis Harites episodes (history · last edit) from various places: IMDB, TV.com etc. I randomly googled a few phrases and they matched, so it's been plagiarised verbatim. Aiken ♫ 18:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Donald Cruickshank (history · last edit) from http://cpe.ucsd.edu/fellows/past-fellows/sir-don-cruickshank.htm. Relist from SCV. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Chi-Lites (history · last edit) from http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifixqw5ldfe~T1. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Mesor (history · last edit) from http://www.cbi.dongnocchi.it/glossary/Cosinor.html. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 21:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Checking with User:Dcoetzee. I don't have the background to address this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. --Dcoetzee 22:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Borgore (history · last edit) from [1]. Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
(For the regularly daily listings for the 9th, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 9a)
The Wikimedia Foundation has received a complaint about widespread replication of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria throughout Wikipedia's articles. The problematic sections are currently blanked, waiting further instructions. I contacted Mike Godwin about this; the ticket has been reassigned to the legal queue and is in his hands at the moment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
How to help
[edit]All of the articles that were identified have been evaluated. In some, content has been removed or rewritten. Others did not seem to have copyright concerns and have been restored unless the correspondent identifies specific passages that prove to be problematic.
At this point, assistance would be most valuable in rewriting content that has had to be removed. The list of articles below details what actions were taken with which article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
List of articles affected
[edit]- All identified articles have been evaluated; see below for resolution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Articles addressed
[edit]Social anxiety disordercontent removed by MRGCurrent diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder(According to independent review, article was a clear copyright violation; deleted and created redirect pending production of new, usable text.)Dissociative identity disorder(Confirmed; about to address)Agoraphobia Without History of Panic Disorder(Rewritten)Melancholic depression(Removed)Bulimia nervosa(Rewritten)Bipolar II disorder(Copied content removed.)Acute stress reaction(Copied content removed.)Mental retardation(Problems in this would seem to be quite limited, but since it is included in the complaint, it is in need of evaluation by somebody who can see the book to see if content is also present in other sections.)(Source check found no issues)Tic disorder(Source check found no issues.)Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome(This one has been rewritten.)Narcissistic personality disorder(Copying has been verified; content has been removed.)Cyclothymia(Content has been rewritten.)Bipolar disorder(Since I cannot access the book, I cannot determine how closely derived this content may be, but this article is one of the articles specifically referenced by our correspondent, and it will need careful evaluation by somebody who can access the book to determine if content is copied from or too closely paraphrases the source.)(Rewritten.)Obsessive–compulsive disorder(Since I cannot access the book, I cannot determine how closely derived this content may be, but this article is one of the articles specifically referenced by our correspondent, and it will need careful evaluation by somebody who can access the book to determine if content is copied from or too closely paraphrases the source.) (This content has been restored, given Cosmic Latte's review, unless specific problematic content is identified.)*Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorderDoesn't seem to have duplicated content; what I see looks amply rewritten.Pedophilia(Small amount of copied material removed.)Conduct disorder(Extensive copying removed.)Posttraumatic stress disorder(No duplication detected.)Histrionic personality disorderthe main content was a copy and paste of criteria, so deletedAtypical depressionthe main content was a copy and paste of criteria, so deletedMalignant narcissismNot a DSM IV category. The "diagnostic criteria" of MN were clearly derived from the DSM IV for Narcissistic Personality Disorder; questions about the reliability of the claimed sourcing in any case, so deleted.Panic disorder(Rewritten)Anorexia nervosa(Rewritten)Avoidant personality disorderthe content was a copy and paste of criteria, so deletedDependent personality disorderthe content was a copy and paste of criteria, so deletedGender identity disordershort and already partly rephrased, so I finished the job.Depersonalization disordershort and already partly rephrased, so I finished the job.Dysthymiaalready significantly rephrased, and I did a bit moreParanoid personality disorderthe content was a copy and paste of criteria, so deletedSchizotypal personality disorderthe content was a copy and paste of criteria, so deletedPersonality disorderthe content was a copy and paste of criteria, so deletedBipolar I disorderMaterial had been rewritten. No issuesSchizophreniform disorderMajor material had been rewritten; some duplication in list of symptoms e.g. delusions and hallucinations, but this seems inevitable given the topicSchizoaffective disorderalready significantly rephrased, and I did the last partDepressive personality disorderthe content was a copy and paste of criteria, so deletedPassive–aggressive behaviorremoved copyvio of criteria; left intro which seems fineOppositional defiant disorderremoved copyvio of criteria; left intro which seems fineGeneralized anxiety disorderthe content was a copy and paste of criteria, so deletedEating disorder not otherwise specifiedthe content was a copy and paste of criteria, so deletedPremature ejaculationthe content was a copy and paste of criteria, so deletedOpioid dependencyno issues found
Discussion
[edit]Extended content
|
|---|
Protest about the procedure[edit]Why is text being embargoed on the basis of an argument (or is it a mere allegation?) we cannot even read? We don't even know WHO is making the argument/allegation or whatever. As far as I'm concerned, if the article on which I've spent so much time PTSD is to be altered so severely, someone had better have presented a copy of the supposedly infringed original marked to show the portion "copied" into Wikipedia, thus achieving a copyright violation. No copy, no violation Now, since that presentation cannot be done, because such copying is simply non-existent in the article, I know that such an argument was NOT made. So, we have an article defaced on the basis of an allegation? Why? Conclusions must be argued for, not merely alleged. That's basic to logic, jurisprudence, and common sense in our culture. Why is it the culture of Wikipedia to put the cowboy in jail (and remember, this cowboy cannot run away!) until he proves he's innocent? That's nuts. How about someone offering something resembling an argument that we actually have a problem. And yes, on a per-article basis. By argument, I mean precisely this: premises (data), and logic, leading to a conclusion. I seen none such here. That rankles. I'm placed in the position of responding to invisible allegations. That's not fair process in any venue I've ever heard of. And, no, I don't accept someone's paraphrase of the allegations. I want the words - the exact text. Only then do I know what I'm dealing with. In the case of the PTSD article, where I know there is no copyright violation, either an specific argument was NOT made about that article (which I suspect), or the author of the allegation has scrambled eggs for brains. (These are hypotheses, not arguments, since I'm lacking data!) It's reasonable to question the material. It's not reasonable to ban it until it's verified as OK. That's not how these processes usual go forward. Instead, why not show there's a problem, THEN embargo it until it's fixed? That would seem like reasonable process. As for copyrighting "order of facts and facts chosen", we're dealing in the DSM with concepts, not facts, when it come to the diagnostic criteria. And how is blazes might we discuss a given diagnostic criteria without bringing the order of them into the discussion. In many cases, the order is a necessary part of a given criteria set. Scramble the order and you have a plain representation of what's being discussed. Recapitulation of the DSM diagnostic criteria for various disorders, as paraphrases, in the original order, is so widely done that I couldn't even begin to count the instances. It's everywhere. IF, as suggested elsewhere on this page, the APA is behind this complaint, they know this, and we have to ask why they are picking on Wikipedia. Maybe they need medication. :) Finally, the DSM is a compendium of separate chapters on separate subjects, by a great multitude of people. For reasons which I should think would be obvious, each chapter, and often parts of chapters dealing with individual disorders, must be discussed in detail here if we're to do our job. What we write here is in the nature of review, at a fairly granular level, to be sure, but a review in any case. Unless there has been copying how can there be a copyright violation? I strongly suggest that a different procedure be adopted for dealing with such protests. I would be happy to assist in arguing for this procedural change if someone could direct me to the proper venue. I've looked for it and not found it, and my time IS limited. Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Tic disorder[edit]
Disputed text is:
Where's the copyvio? May I have "my" article back? :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Mental retardation[edit]you can find mental retardation in http://behavenet.com/capsules at http://behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/mentretard.htm --Penbat (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
PTSD - Post-traumatic stress disorder[edit]
The DSM section in Narcissistic personality disorder has been completely removed which IMO completely rips the heart out of the article. Is this a stopgap measure or an edict from Mike Godwin? As a fallback position I am sure a paraphrased version of the DSM diagnostic criteria would be allowed at the very least. I am not too sure why the APA have lodged this complaint in the first place, for a start Wikipedia is non-profit making so nobody is making money off the back of this. --Penbat (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
|