User talk:EranBot/Copyright

What to do once a report has been reviewed?
Is it correct that for any entry on the copyright report, we should first flag it as either "TP" or "FP" (text is, or is not, a copy of content elsewhere) and then delete the entry once the article in question has been addressed? Or should entries be archived somewhere instead of being deleted? If entries should not be deleted or archived, what is the recommended way of noting that the copyright issue has been dealt with? I can imagine that this page will grow fairly quickly, so it would be good to understand how best to manage it. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 02:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can manage this to deal with copyright issues and will accordingly tag the status (TP/FP) of notifications and then we can archive the entries after some time rather than deleting them. Lets give it some time so we can decide when to archive the notification, either weekly or monthly, depend of how many notifications we get each day. --Saqib (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've created a User:EranBot/Copyright/Archive page and moved a few entries there, and I've also added a  field to the template, so in addition to   there is a place to note whether the entry really is a copyvio or whether it is valid for use on Wikivoyage. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 22:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

What to do with this information
Would you all agree that people who have "True Positive" results need to be contacted and/or have the edits in question reverted for cause, pointing to these results? Also, why is it that when a user is "away", there is only a clock icon and neither a "TP" nor "FP" result? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone interested in tackling this question? Do we need to revert all the TP passages? If not, why not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it a "true positive" means the bot correctly identified text that exists on another web site, but it does not necessarily mean that content cannot be used here. For example, I'm flagged for copying content from nps.gov (public domain, and noted as such in the edit summary) and for merging content from one article on Wikivoyage to another (which then triggered a match on some WT mirror sites).  This bot is helpful for identifying content that needs to be investigated, and we should probably add a field to the template to indicate whether something has been investigated or not, but a revert-on-sight policy would be the wrong way to go. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 04:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[Unindent]OK, but maybe we should discuss which edits should be reverted. The flagged edits by User:Traveler100 seem to actually be false positives and to have been flagged only because the term "The Casentino valley" was used in the articles in question. User:Ukabia's work on the Igbo phrasebook doesn't look plagiarized, but instead, has a significant degree of similarity with the Wikitravel version of the phrasebook largely because the same words are translated and because of basic truths about the Igbo language. On Eritrea, this comparison looks very random and nowhere near plagiarism; this one is more troubling, with this passage seeming to have been plagiarized:

''Eritrean society is ethnically heterogeneous. An independent census has yet to be conducted, but the Tigrinya people make up about 55% and Tigre people make up about 30% of the population. These form the bulk of the country's predominantly Semitic-speaking population. Most of the rest of the population belong to other Afroasiatic-speaking communities of the Cushitic branch, such as the Saho, Hedareb, Afar and Bilen.''

This passage is also flagged in this comparison:

''Other Afroasiatic groups include the Rashaida, who represent about 2% of Eritrea's population. They reside in the northern coastal lowlands of Eritrea as well as the eastern coasts of Sudan. The Rashaida first came to Eritrea in the 19th century from the Hejaz region. More recently, Hadhrami migrants have also settled in the country.''

It looks encyclopedic, anyway. I'm going to delete the whole thing very soon unless someone gives me a good reason why I shouldn't.

Similarly, Gabon has some problematic encyclopedic content. This comparison flagged the following passages:

''The earliest inhabitants of the area were Pygmy peoples. They were largely replaced and absorbed by Bantu tribes as they migrated.''

''In the 15th century, the first Europeans arrived. The nation's present name originates from "Gabão", Portuguese for "cloak", which is roughly the shape of the estuary of the Komo River close to the capital of Libreville. French explorer Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza led his first mission to the Gabon-Congo area in 1875. He founded the town of Franceville, and was later colonial governor. Several Bantu groups lived in the area that is now Gabon when France officially occupied it in 1885.''

In 1910, Gabon became one of the four territories of French Equatorial Africa, a federation that survived until 1959.

Culture

''A country with a primarily oral tradition up until the spread of literacy in the 21st century, Gabon is rich in folklore and mythology. "Raconteurs" are currently working to keep traditions alive such as the mvett among the Fangs and the ingwala among the Nzebis.''

''Gabon also features internationally celebrated masks, such as the n'goltang (Fang) and the relicary figures of the Kota. Each group has its own set of masks used for various reasons. They are mostly used in traditional ceremonies such as marriage, birth and funerals. Traditionalists mainly work with rare local woods and other precious materials.''

It's fine to paraphrase historical information when it's of interest but these passages seem to have been verbatim copy-pasted from a website that has this at the bottom of its pages:

© 2006 - 2015, Develop Africa Foundation

I'm going to delete these passages in the Gabon article without waiting for discussion, but I'll wait until tomorrow to deal with Eritrea unless I get at least one person agreeing with me on it tonight. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I had already reverted that passage about "Culture": see this edit. Somehow, the other plagiarism got through. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Eritrea edits were by the same user, and were reverted by me some time ago. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So since you've already reverted the edits some time ago, I hope the case is solved? --Saqib (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)