Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resilient control systems

Resilient control systems

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was apparently originally copied wholesale from a government white paper, Resilient Control Systems: Next Generation Design Research, HSI 2009, Craig G. Rieger, David I. Gertman, Miles A. McQueen, May 2009, apparently by one of the authors. It not only constitutes plagiarism on our part but is primarily original research. Jojalozzo 17:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the article's creator added his own article, I think that qualifies as a big conflict of interest. Does copy vio still qualify if it's the author of the piece uploads his own work? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

The content is government public domain I think. It's more a matter of plaiarism than copyright problem. The COI is also an issue but not as critical in my view Jojalozzo 22:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on the public domain of the transposed content, and as well, I am the original author/representative of said content. It represents a summarization of existing thought in the area, and to this end, I have added a number of additional, independent references to further address the "original research" and "conflict of interest" comments. --Crieger (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content is original. It is a violation of policy to copy in content from another source. All the text copied from your whitepaper needs to be replaced. Adding sources does nothing to fix our plagiarism problem or the COI problem. It may be possible to prevent or delay deletion of the article by moving it to user space where all the content can be replaced but you'd have to be willing to do the work of rewriting it from scratch or maybe writing a short original summary that could be moved back into article space as the basis for a final article to be developed as a collaborative project with other editors. Jojalozzo 03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have such a policy. If a publication is in the public domain, its text may be freely used, also in Wikipedia articles. See the many articles transcluding attribution templates such as {{1911}}, {{1913}}, {{Bryan}}, {{EncyclopaediaBiblica}}, or {{Watkins}}, which often means the text has been copied over wholesale. --Lambiam 16:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps the article could use a few more attributions to the cited article to clarify that it's mostly from there? Provided that something's correctly cited, I don't see a problem with getting material from a public-domain source. Allens (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources will not change the fact that basically all the content is lifted from other sources. That's a major policy violation that can only be fixed by removing the content. Jojalozzo 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show evidence for this being the policy with regard to a properly-referenced, public-domain source. Allens (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is central core policy. I referenced it in the intro above: WP:Plagiarism. Jojalozzo 16:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From there (emphasis mine; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources): 'Whether copyright-expired or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed. Public-domain attribution notices should not be removed from an article or simply replaced with inline citations unless it is verified that all phrasing and information from the public-domain source has been excised. The text may be attributed in the same way as it is for copyrighted material, but the source can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim if it is cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page (see the section "Where to place attribution" for more details).' In other words, it simply needs better attribution in the References section... so unless you can show policy that overrides this (it's a content guideline, not policy), that's what needs to happen, not deletion or near-deletion via editing down into a stub. Allens (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are misapplying the policy. It's not intended to apply to a complete article or even major portions of an article. As the policy says we have to attribute the copied text to INL.gov and put it all in quote marks. What's the benefit for Wikipedia (or our readers) in reusing existing content wholesale? Why not just have a summary and a link to the whitepaper? See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Jojalozzo 22:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been totally rewritten and the wikipedia entry updated. The original deletion statement has been left for removal by the individual that applied it.--Crieger (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Instrumentation, Control and Intelligent Systems created by the same account. An {{advert}} tag was removed. --Lambiam 14:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. That article is a copy/paste from the web site and it is copyrighted. I'll PROD it. At least the author provides links to the copy sources - that makes it easier to check out and is a sign of good faith. Jojalozzo 22:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is an aspect of resilience engineering and there are several books about that such as Resilience Engineering in Practice. The field seems to support regular symposia and scholarly papers. We should encourage further development per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the topic isn't a good one for the project but we cannot use material copied from another source. I think a good resolution would be to replace all the current content with a summary stub if there is someone who will take that on. If not, then we shoudl delete the article until someone is ready to write the article without copying from other sources. Jojalozzo 23:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came here via an invitation posted on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism by User:Jojalozzo. Allens is spot on with his/her analysis. In the "Where to place attribution" of WP:PLAGARISM there is an example which is similar to this one see Western Allied invasion of Germany#References it uses the template {{USGovernment}}. We have 187 similar templates see category:Attribution templates. US Government articles are not quite the same thing as PD documents, we have a moral obligation to attribute PD documents (and practical ones to do with plagiarism and issues and OR), but I suspect that we have legal obligation to clearly note the US Government's copyright even if it allows us to use the content freely, but even if we do not, WP:PLAGARISM mandates that we do. We have thousands and thousands of such articles and as it happens last month Jimbo asked how to attribute the article Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, which he could tell by the style of writing was a copy from somewhere else. So although there may be other reasons to delete this article, providing it is properly attributed and has inline citations to the author of the copied text, plagiarism is not one of them. -- PBS (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PBS. I note that such articles don't use quote marks. Jojalozzo, as an academic (specifically, a professor who's been involved with cracking down on plagiarism... a rather unpleasant business) I do appreciate your desire to avoid plagiarism. But there is a reason to have it on Wikipedia already copied in, instead of just giving a link. It's to enable people to edit it and improve it. Allens (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the good discussion. However, I went ahead and rewrote the article and updated the wikipedia entry. The original deletion statement has been left for removal by the individual that applied it.--184.155.147.128 (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]