Talk:Polish exercise book advertisement copies Wikipedia content, violates copyright

Plagiarism is a serious allegation, having had my fingers burnt trying to track down one case against the UK's Daily Telegraph I'd want to see alleged copied text versus claimed WP original. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think we need to see that. If need be, I think a photo of the alleged text in the book, could be uploaded here as a Fair Use image. Honestly that would be the only evidence and or proof available so I would say its of great importance. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Also the image available now, I cannot see as it's too big for my monitor and refuses to load. I can however see it in the article as it is sized. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a temporary problem with one of the upload.wikimedia.org server, let's resume this after it's been resolved. Wpedzich (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes...I forgot about that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the uploaded scan shows clearly the point, also there's a link to pl.wiki available. Wpedzich (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt it...but I also don't know Polish...If the exact text can be put here and translated or what not that would be great. Also, is this book in English at all? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a book, but a magazine which published an exercise book advertisement. I'll try to supplement the article with a translation. Wpedzich (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the translation really necessary? The scanned page of the magazine shows the text in question clearly, and the provided diff to the version of the article which was the source of the text can be sufficient proof that the Wikipedia entry was copied word-for-word --Wyksztalcioch (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A translation will not show the plagiarism, so those asking for that are wasting their time. The characters used in Polish do not differ that much from English to prevent a comparison of the word-for-word text. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Text is identical

I've just compared and they are practically identical (of the 30 odd words, there is just one none that differs)! It's obviously a case of either 4fun.tv having copied the polish Wikipedia's introductory paragraph (perhaps the older version so as to make it less noticable?) or both being copies of the same text/definition (perhaps a very old encyclopedia, as the Creative Director of 4fun.tv claims). This was a case of my misunderstanding the article: The magazine text is a copy of the most current version, and that most current version is the product of multiple users over a length of time. The article has not been edited this month. That's the most I can verify. Guess I was wrong: I reckon it can be pretty surely claimed that the magazine copied from the polish Wikipedia. Sean Heron (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Edited: Sean Heron (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I reckon you/me/someone could bring this up with the Free Software Foundation, as far as I remember they are happy to sue to enforce their licences. Of course it would be better if a solution could be found with the publisher first: I think the newer versions of the FSF licences have provisions for remedying non compliance with them [the licence's]. Although I imagine writing the entire GFDL into the magazine is a non starter... (I think that's necessary, though I'm not sure). Which, of course is one reason we here are using the CC-by licence. (Obviously all would depend on the text being a copy of wikipedia).

Frontline mention

Please see the talk page of Adam's bridge for details.-- Tharikrish^Talk 05:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Review

Revision 714317 of this article has been reviewed by Poisonous (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Nice article :D The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 714317 of this article has been reviewed by Poisonous (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Nice article :D The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

There seems to be considerably disagreement above. Is this really ready for publication, given the serious allegations? --SVTCobra 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, maybe I missed something, I read through the talk page but if there was disagreement, I missed it. --Poisonous (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Title

Since the issue appears to be lacking attribution (Which would make it legal under Polish law), wouldn't "plagiarizes" work better? 68.39.174.238 00:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Christ...

... the amateurism. Not only is this one of the embarrassing, biased meta-news articles that only appear on this site because no other media would even consider the story, the headline constitutes slander, a very serious offense. Was the publisher in question convicted of copyright violation? No I didn't think so. Then correct the article NOW before I have you sued! --85.82.179.226 08:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see court papers served by 85.82.179.226! Put a name to your legal threats. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A lack of conviction isn't slander when such evidence is produced. When I stand up in court and say "he did it!" it isn't slander even though it is not proven he did in fact do it. We are not reporting an allegation as fact but making one of our own, with proof for it published alongside. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What, Wikinews is the court now? Not that I'd be surprised that you delusional wiki-nazi's would think that you have higher authority than the judicial system. --85.82.179.226 19:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a legal background, seing as you asked. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)