Wikipedia talk:Danny's contest/Danny's contest 1

Start date

Perhaps the creation date of the article should be limited? If an article was created a month ago is it eligible? A cut-off date would ensure that the article is new but what would be the situation with substubs?. violet/riga (t) 08:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should I just write a stub?

Since you consider the author to be the first contributor it would seem to mean that if I create a 2 line stub which someone else expands to 3 pages then I will get the prize? SimonLyall 10:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it ok if I add this example to my proposed new policy Wikipedia:When creating new policy and rules, don't be too over-specific because people will automatically pick holes, find loopholes and attempt to game the system (Actually that policy is at Wikipedia:How to create policy)?

You seem to be betting awfully heavily that someone is going to come along and fix up your stubs for you. In the vast majority of stub cases, this is not the case. →Raul654 18:01, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

It does happen, though. I fixed up Hey Jude (which though not stubby wasn't exactly featured material either) into a featured article. I do admit it's rare, but in case this happens... Johnleemk | Talk 19:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyone using such an anti-social, counter-productive tactic would be disqualified, I hope? This is a friendly competition; the real winner will be Wikipedia as a whole. • Benc • 10:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

General comments

Shouldn't a barnstar or just a word of thanks be enough? There is, of course, the trouble of mailing a T-shirt to the winner. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 04:32, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

One can always let the winner choose. -- Emsworth 16:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely love this idea, and am now looking for some good requested articles to write. We have plenty of mechanisms in place for collaboration, but this is the first I've seen for competition. If this contest were to include pages in the Wikipedia namespace, Wikipedia:Danny's contest should win its own award. :-) • Benc • 10:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Questions

Just a few questions, to satisfy my own curiosity:

• How were the judges selected?

At random by me.

• Is there any limit on the number of articles one may submit?

No.

• Will this contest be repeated?

Quite possiby. Depends on my bank account, other sponsors, etc.

• Will there be any special image of a medal which the winner could display on his or her user page?

Good idea. I will look into it. Danny 18:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Special gold, silver and bronze barnstars? --Joe D 15:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- Emsworth 16:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another question: if we collaborate with another user, can the first author specify that the prize be split (e.g., shirt for me, mug for you) when submitting the article? Another good way to "cheat", I guess, unless this contest is only for solo efforts. • Benc • 10:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Colloboration like that is a great idea. That is definitely acceptable. Danny 11:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Expansion of stubs

So, this contest is not about expanding the random stub? Not even a new stub? I was disappointed when my (in small scale) planned submission Childhood amnesia was created as a stub today (I put it on Reqs some days ago) :-/ ✏ Sverdrup 18:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On a similar line, I was rather disappointed that my article [ which I will not disclose, lest anybody "steal" it :p ] might not qualify. It was once an article, but was then merged with another article and is now a redirect. -- Emsworth 19:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This was just the sort of point I was hinting at above (though I think Raul may have misinterpreted me).

A simple rule like "If you contribute substantially on a topic within the next $QUALIFYING_TIME_PERIOD, list it below. The judges will pick what the judge to be the best contribution and award it the Danny Prize." Leave it to the judges to pontificate on what weight to attach to the various features of the contribution (stub -> good article conversions, new articles, picking a requested articles). Pcb21| Pete 19:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All of that could be the basis for a future contest, but as far as this contest goes, the crietria is new articles. Future contests might be held for stub improvement, best picture, etc. All in good time. Danny 19:48, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Data dumps

Does turning a pure data dump (from CIA) into an article count? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:52, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, not in this contest. My next contest may be transforming a stub or a datadump into a great article, but this time, we're working on new articles. Danny 00:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK. Maybe next time an interesting project would be turing a "Geography of..." data dump into a featured article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:06, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

What Google Likes

Since What Google Likes is technically part of Wikipedia:Requested articles, do those count for the contest? Or should we just "cheat" as recommended by the contest? -- McGravin 21:57, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The Rape of the Sabines

• As I can see, there is clearly a problem with my article (and other ones). First of all, the name is not the best (should be "The Rape of the Sabine Women"), but it was picked straight from the "Wanted" list. Secondly, I beleive, this is research and compilation, but not a copyright infringment.

Satanovski 03:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Somebody has taken the old saw of "stealing from one source is plagiarism, stealing from many is research" a little too seriously. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I will propose a "new saw": "article of User:Cyrius - article, article of somebody else - copyright infringement". However, as Encyclopedia (and good one, I should say), Wikipedia only wins, if there will be clearly defined words for:
  • research
  • compilation
  • plagiarism
  • copyright enfringement

If there is dicussion about artist - we are OK. If we trying to define "Art"... Without clear definitions Cyrius will put Terrorist Training Camp under Educational Institution heading. By the way. Cyrius, I did not mean to vandalise your User page.Satanovski 04:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Under what criteria my article - "copyright infrigement"?Satanovski 05:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You copied it from several sources. That's still plagiarism. Johnleemk | Talk 05:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• First of all, I did not copied it, as anybody can see. Secondly, was the article about Jacques-Louis David (or the same ) based on personal knowledge? Satanovski 06:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anybody can see that you did copy the material. You just copied from multiple sources and mixed it together. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Cyrius. Please consult the Webster's dictionary for the meaning of the word "copy". Your problem - misunderstanding of simple definitions. If you can not write anything yourself (as anybody can see from User:Cyrius), this is not a reason to enforce your own misunderstandings on others.Satanovski 01:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You do not understand copyright law if you think one must make a verbatim duplicate of the copyrighted material in order to violate its copyright. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• If I do not understand the Copyright Act, explain it to me. But first read definition of the word "copy" in Webster's, than in any law dictionary, than try to read Cpyright Act and related documents and court cases... And only than bring your knowledge to public. Are you a lawyer? By the way, sorry about my English - I am in the process of studying it. Satanovski 04:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There is more. You, Cyrius, reverted my Areopagus as a copyvio, despite in the link, submitted by you, the only similarity to my article is the word "Areopagus" (Nice link though. How you get it?).
    • You, Cyrius, reverted my submission to David Alfaro Siqueiros as a copyvio. Once User:Everyking reverted it for one simple reason: he did not know, that Siqueiros was involved in assasination of Leon Trotsky. With my submission User:Everyking became more educated, but you, Cyrius, reverted it.
      • When you, Cyrius, started your cry for copyvio, another member of the "Welcome Committy", User:The Anome, happily reverted my submissions to Marc Chagall and put unplesant message on my page. Funny, but today somebody (not me) put my submission back, because it is useful for the particular artist. However User:The Anome reverting nothing. Cyrius! Do you know why? I told you before - you have problems with definitions. Can you define for me Double Standard? I know something about Double Standard - it stinks. Satanovski 10:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's some help — copyright, fair use, plagiarism. Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you. Satanovski 12:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia articles The Rape of the Sabines is not plagiarism and surely not copyright infrigement. Cyrius, read definitions!!! In my opinion, it is compilation, based on extensive research, even with more or less original idea. fair use irrelevant. Raw though, because I planned to use the week, which left to the deadline of the competition, to work on my "Sabine". Satanovski 12:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In case you didn't see my point, your article, the Rape of the Sabines, even if based on several sources, if you did not modify the words sufficiently to meet the standards of originality stated in copyright, it is plagiarism. And I quote from the latter article: "For instance, it is legal for a student to copy several paragraphs (or even pages) of text from a public domain book, such as Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and then directly add these quotations to his or her own paper. However if these quotations were not clearly identified as to his or her source, then the student would be guilty of plagiarism, using another writer's work as if it were his or her own." Several sentences in the article were not modified and were taken verbatim from your sources. Thus, it was a copyright violation. A compilation is a derived work, and is not original work in itself. It was not based on extensive research, because instead of rephrasing the concepts written by other authors, you took their words verbatim and threw them together. That is not research — it is mass plagiarism. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"A compilation is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." Text taken by me straight from the Copyright Office of US (Public Domain?) As you can see, "...work formed by the collection and assembling of prexisting materials...selected...or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship" Secondly, how you get the idea, that "several sentences in the article were not modified" and "took their words verbatim and threw them together"? What "verbatim" and where "together"? Not only senteces were modified enough from feminist article to representation of Roman mithology in art works in 1400-1700, but (I hope) there is absolutely differen meaning.Satanovski 13:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stop lying. Compare this and [1]. You lifted whole sentences from the latter link. And even so, you did not credit the authors of the webpages concerned, nor even let people know you based the articles (although all you did was take sentences from separate links and throw them into paragraphs) on outside webpages. And furthermore, read the notice below whenever you edit: "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages." And even if public domain, as I said above, including whole sentences without crediting the original author remains plagiarism. If the webpages aren't public domain or under the GFDL, which we have no reason to believe, it's still a copyright violation. Johnleemk | Talk 13:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I never told that story about "The Rape of the Sabines" is my own story. I never told that I used my own recollections, or tales of my grandparents. I told that I did use about 7 different sources to write the article, including the source your are mentioning. However, I put your own sentence "stop lying" in Vivisimo - 141 hits. In regular MSN serch - 939529 hits. Did you borrow it? Now look:

• "A compilation is a derived work, and 'is not original' work in itself".

User:Johnleemk

• "...or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship."

Copyright Office, US

Who is lying? You telling "it is not", Copyright Office of US telling "yes, it is". The problem is - definition. Try to use definitions closer to its origin - will be easier to talk. Moreover, "lying" is not the best word in discussion. Lets go to basics, i.e. Webster's Dictionary: 1. Plagiarize - a)to take and pass off as one's own (the ideas, writings, etc. of another). b)to take ideas, writings, etc. from and pass them off as one's own. 2. Plagiarizm - the act of plagiarizing. Surely, I did not use the idea of the Diane Wolfthal. When I did use parts of her sentences (not much), does it amounts to her writings? We may check difinition for writing.

"...if you did not modify the words sufficiently to meet the standards of originality stated in copyright, it is plagiarism". Do you remember? This is your, User:Jonleemk, definition for the plagiarizm. What the "standards of originality"? What is it? If you will use my (sorry, Webster's) difinition for "plagiarizm", you will see, that no matter how much you "modify the words", if you take and pass off as your own ideas or writings, you in trouble. If you are using "standards of originality", you in trouble again - you do not know, what are you talking about. Satanovski 16:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I said "whole sentences". Is "stop lying" more than one sentence? Hell, you're just being pedantic. If you have to resort to technicalities to prove your case (which would be invalidated in one of the most technicality-based places, a court of law), I don't see how any reaosnable argument can argue with you. You passed off several different authors' works as your own. You did not credit them on the page. They did not agree to let you republish their works in any form. While technically a compilation is a new, derived piece of work, it is not necessarily any less subject to copyright law than any other piece of writing. And unless all the authors from which you plagiarised placed their work into the public domain or let their work be used under any circumstances, you have broken the law by republishing it, lifting several sentences from each of their works (even the most liberal author will at the most let you republish his/her work as long as credit is given). You are resorting to technicalities. I don't give a crap whether your "work" is "original" or not, because by any standards of copyright law. How about we make this easy? You email every author from which you stole their writing, and ask them if they mind it. Note that compilations of written works need permission of the author(s) involved. Did you ask their permission? If not...I'm tempted to tell you to [expletive] off, but, never mind. Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• From the beginning I did not like to be involved in any kind of discussions. But User:Johnleemk in his age put it hundred percent right: you just don't give a crap (in regard to?) any standards of copyright law.Satanovski 17:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Au contraire, it is you who have presumed that the authors gave you their permission to compile their works together without even giving them credit. Johnleemk | Talk 07:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Getting worried or excited

I am slowly getting worried by the number of articles listed here :-) Mais que diable allait elle faire dans cette galère !.

You may start corrupting me on my user page by offering me flowers. SweetLittleFluffyThing 17:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As somebody on the page said, I'm worried about there being only one prize. There are so many good articles! Johnleemk | Talk 18:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's difficult to keep myself from nominating more of my own writings (e.g. Passenger car, Rotary snowplow, Brooks Locomotive Works). I've got many more in the works, but I'd better let my entries stand. B-) slambo 18:57, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Has judging started/finished yet? Johnleemk | Talk 13:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We did a miss America style elimination and narrowed the field down to our favorite 7 or 8 articles, yes. We haven't yet sorted those out, though. →Raul654 13:09, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, though looking at the field I'm pretty sure I know which articles those are. ;-) Can't wait for the final results. Kinda' sad there's only one prize, though (and I'm almost certain I know who's going to win). Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Everyone knows it's Economy of Africa that's going to win, duh... ;) Dysprosia 13:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, because the entries were all excellent, I have decided to institute prizes for 2nd and 3rd place too. (unsigned comment by Danny)

Hurrah! Will editors be eligible for more than one placing? :-p Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but there are no more additions now. We will announce the winners later today. Danny 14:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool, I can't wait. I'm giddy with excitement! Johnleemk | Talk 14:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)