I checked Wikipedia, as Scott Kozel mentioned that some articles may have been copied from transportation web-sites.
The Henry Watterson Expwy. (I-264) had information that was lifted from my site, had the word order rearranged, and parts snipped from the historical part of my travel guide.
I corrected this issue and added a citation. If you find any, please edit it and give credit where its due! /will be correcting more in the next day...
In article <1104637670.517123.142...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<blc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >My understanding is that Wikipedia largely ignores complaints of >plagiarism, short of C&D letters and/or other litigations threats.
Your are mistaken.
-GAWollman
-- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every woll...@lcs.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)
> I've heard of many occurrences of this happening, also from outside the > Roadgeek realm.
> My understanding is that Wikipedia largely ignores complaints of > plagiarism, short of C&D letters and/or other litigations threats.
Then how can they "publish" such detailed information if in many cases they don't cite where they got it from? I can see a lot of my original information in some of their highway articles, in rewritten form in a somewhat different writing style, and only a few times did they give my any credit.
> > I've heard of many occurrences of this happening, also from outside the > > Roadgeek realm.
> > My understanding is that Wikipedia largely ignores complaints of > > plagiarism, short of C&D letters and/or other litigations threats.
> Then how can they "publish" such detailed information if in many cases > they don't cite where they got it from? I can see a lot of my original > information in some of their highway articles, in rewritten form in a > somewhat different writing style, and only a few times did they give my > any credit.
Add to the fact they just cite from the Rand McNally half the time... I say that we press on and edit the information or remove the article entirely and cite copyright issues.
I agree that Wikipedia has a lot of information that was culled from other sites such as yours. I don't know whether someone on thier staff pulls it in (I would hope not), or if an unrelated party submits a "repackaged version" of the information as if it were their own. The bottom line is, as I said before, (I've heard of) many occurrences of this happening.
So then, what to do about it? Either request that the proper attribution be made, submit an "authentic" version of the article to make things right, or request that it be pulled altogether.
Problem is, none of the above will get you any results. Examples:
I agree that Wikipedia has a lot of information that was culled from other sites such as yours. I don't know whether someone on thier staff pulls it in (I would hope not), or if an unrelated party submits a "repackaged version" of the information as if it were their own. The bottom line is, as I said before, (I've heard of) many occurrences of this happening.
So then, what to do about it? Either request that the proper attribution be made, submit an "authentic" version of the article to make things right, or request that it be pulled altogether.
Problem is, none of the above will get you any results. Examples:
blc...@yahoo.com wrote: > I think I was misunderstood.
> I agree that Wikipedia has a lot of information that was culled from > other sites such as yours. I don't know whether someone on thier staff > pulls it in (I would hope not), or if an unrelated party submits a > "repackaged version" of the information as if it were their own. The > bottom line is, as I said before, (I've heard of) many occurrences of > this happening.
> So then, what to do about it? Either request that the proper > attribution be made, submit an "authentic" version of the article to > make things right, or request that it be pulled altogether.
> Problem is, none of the above will get you any results. Examples:
> Also as I said before, you pretty much have to take legal action to > correct any plagiarism.
You can view changes made my other users and see what work they did to it. I found the source who copied materials from my site and e-mailed him a blunt letter about it, since my site does have a copyright for all materials and photos.
In the previous, when I had edited information and correctly cited it, they removed the parts I changed ENTIRELY because I violated my own copyright! I clearly cited where it came from, and made a note to the mods that I was giving permission to use parts of MY own article.
They ignored. If they continue this, it will be relatively easy to file suit since some roadgeek sites are copyrighted...
> > I've heard of many occurrences of this happening, also from outside the > > Roadgeek realm.
> > My understanding is that Wikipedia largely ignores complaints of > > plagiarism, short of C&D letters and/or other litigations threats.
> Oh bullshit. This is a case of where HE got pissed because somebody else was > presenting "the same" information. > So therefor,it's a ripoff. > Hell, he even ripped off the information himself and he's whining?
Dumbass makes his appearance once again! No wonder he is killfiled by the majority of the people.
For the record, my sources are cited on the pages that are renovated, where applicable. The majority of my sources come from official documents and newspaper articles. I have put forth countless hours of research into my project, and because of that, all text that I have wrote is copyrighted. Likewise, if the author at Wiki wants to use my work, then they ask _me_ for permission for useage of my research and they are required to cite it in full. If they want to go out and do the research themselves, that's fine, but they must clearly cite where they got their information from.
What pissed me off was the fact they copied word-from-word on many segments of that article and others, rearranged the wording in a few areas, and failed to cite.
Likewise, if they take any of my photos, those are copyrighted and I will remove the article entirely without hesitation.
Did you go to high school or college Bullis? Because you would learn that plagarism is a very bad, bad thing.
> > I checked Wikipedia, as Scott Kozel mentioned that some articles may > > have been copied from transportation web-sites.
> > The Henry Watterson Expwy. (I-264) had information that was lifted from > > my site, had the word order rearranged, and parts snipped from the > > historical part of my travel guide.
> > I corrected this issue and added a citation. If you find any, please > > edit it and give credit where its due! > > /will be correcting more in the next day...
> BTW dufus, did you catch this little item on the page?
> Sources: > Interstate 264 Travel Guide at Ohio Valley Transit
And dumbass, once again, did you check the revision history? I made that edit only a few hours ago, adding in the correct source for the research that I compiled. SPUI edited it an hour or so later with correct formatting, since I am unfamilar with Wiki's formatting. Dumbass! Dumbass! Let's all point to Richard...
In article <1104641681.295624.111...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<blc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >I agree that Wikipedia has a lot of information that was culled from >other sites such as yours. I don't know whether someone on thier staff >pulls it in (I would hope not)
It would be hard, since Wikipedia does not have a staff. (I understand the Wikimedia Foundation does have a small staff to take care of financials and system administration, but all the people working on their projects are volunteers.) The mechanism for copyright owners to request removal of infringing material is described in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Designated_agent>. (Note that there is a specific legal form which must be followed to make the request valid; see the Act for details.)
-GAWollman
-- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every woll...@lcs.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom. MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)
> >I agree that Wikipedia has a lot of information that was culled from > >other sites such as yours. I don't know whether someone on thier staff > >pulls it in (I would hope not)
> It would be hard, since Wikipedia does not have a staff. (I > understand the Wikimedia Foundation does have a small staff to take > care of financials and system administration, but all the people > working on their projects are volunteers.) The mechanism for > copyright owners to request removal of infringing material is > described in > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Designated_agent>. (Note that > there is a specific legal form which must be followed to make the > request valid; see the Act for details.)
I would be interested in knowing who compiled their information on Interstate highways, given the huge amount of information that they have on that topic, on each individual Interstate highway.
The information was made "publicly available" because someone busted their ass, did some research and published it. It takes time, effort, energy, and even money to put it out there.
Public != Free
And just because there is not a "precise resemblance" does not make it legal to repost as if it was one's own work.
Many of us wish your special brand of stupidity wasn't "publicly available"...
> The information was made "publicly available" because someone busted > their ass, did some research and published it. It takes time, effort, > energy, and even money to put it out there.
> Public != Free
And especially if it is copyrighted...
> And just because there is not a "precise resemblance" does not make it > legal to repost as if it was one's own work.
> Many of us wish your special brand of stupidity wasn't "publicly > available"...
I am assuming you are replying to Richard? You snipped out the reply :(
Sherman Cahal wrote: > > Many of us wish your special brand of stupidity wasn't "publicly > > available"... > I am assuming you are replying to Richard? You snipped out the reply
Hmmmm.... How about Richard=Queef? -- Comrade Mr Heavy Heavy Monster Sound Yamamoto http://mryamamoto.50megs.com "As we go on with our lives we tend to forget that the jails and the hospitals and the madhouses and the graveyards are packed"
Wikipedia? Hell, just tonight I found out the Wisconsin Historical Commission -- a part of the state government -- copied several passages directly from my (former) Wisconsin Highways site. (Some of this infor- mation is changing as I'm migrating it over to the new site, but the old site is still there for comparison sake.)
For example, here are two passages -- mine written in 1998 and theirs "copyright" 2003:
ME: "Today, the state is home to fourteen US routes: 2, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 41, 45, 51, 53, 61, 63, 141 and 151. With the coming of the Interstates, only one US route has been decommissioned: US-16."
WHC: "Today, Wisconsin is home to 14 USHs (2, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 41, 45, 51, 53, 61, 63, 141, and 151). With the advent of the interstate system, only one USH was decommissioned - USH 16."
Also...
ME: "Originally, state routes in Wisconsin were numbered only from 10 through 75 [...]. During various expansions of the state trunkline system, route numbers into the 190s were used. State routes greater then 199 are newer designations, mostly running along other relocated or decommissioned routes."
WHC: "Originally, STH routes were numbered from 10 through 75. As the system expanded, route numbers through 199 were assigned. Routes numbered greater than 199 are recent designations that typically run along decommissioned or relocated routes."
And...
ME: "Originally, however, the state was to only have two: I-90 and I-94. [...] In time, WisDOT was able to convince the federal government to okay the completion of the US-141 freeway between Milwaukee and Green Bay and designate it as I-43. In the 1980s, the I-43 designa- tion was extended southwest of Milwaukee to Beloit along SR-15."
WHC: "Initially, Wisconsin was to have only two interstate routes, I-90 and I-94. However, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation was able to convince the federal government to approve I-43 between Milwaukee and Green Bay. In the 1980s, I-43 was extended southwest to Beloit."
And again...
ME: "It was during the late-1950s and 1960s when an extensive system of freeways was proposed for the Metropolitan Milwaukee area, most of which were to reside within Milwaukee County itself. The Milwaukee County Expressway Commission was created to develop this system of freeways.
WHC: "An extensive system of freeways was proposed for the Metropolitan Milwaukee area in the late 1950s and 1960s. The Milwaukee County Expressway Commission was formed in 1954 to designate the routes, plan and design the system, and arrange for the necessary right-of- way acquisition and utility relocation."
Yes, even more...
ME: "Out of the ten proposed freeways, only five were completed in their entirety (North-South/I-94 & I-43, East-West/I-94, Zoo I-894 & US-45, Airport/I-43 & I-894, and Rock/I-43), while four others were begun but never completed (Stadium Frwy/US-41, Park Frwy/SR-145, Fond du Lac Frwy/SR-145, and Lake Frwy/I-794). The final proposed freeway, the Belt Frwy, was never begun."
WHC: "Of the proposed freeways, only seven were completed in entirety: the North-South Freeway as I-94 and I-43; the East-West Freeway, I-94; the Airport Freeway, I-894; a portion of the Lake Freeway, I-794; a portion of the Fond du Lac Freeway; the Zoo Freeway; and the Rock Freeway, Highway 15. Four others were begun but never completed: Stadium Freeway, US 41; Park Freeway, SR 145; Fond du Lac Freeway, SR 145; and Lake Freeway, I-794. The Belt Freeway was never begun."
NOTE: In the previous version of my website, I used the "SR" abbrevia- tion for "State Route," while WisDOT *and* the other portions of the Wisc Historical Commissions website use "STH" for "State Trunk High- way." I find it odd, then, that the above paragraph uses *SR*! I wonder where they got THAT from...?
And even more...
ME: "The tide of public opinion began to change as the freeway system was under construction, and by the 1970s, most of the remaining portions of the system were to remain unbuilt. What is left are several "stub- ends" where freeways or ramps terminate randomly."
WHC: "Public support changed in the 1970s with rigid opposition to the uncompleted remnants of the proposed system. Several "stub-ends" remain today where freeways terminate somewhat randomly."
NOTE: I love how sometimes they changed words around, but other times simply used the exact same verbiage, like "several 'stub-ends'". I like how they separated "terminate randomly" with "somewhat" in theirs...
In the end, they borrowed heavily from my website, but didn't even think enough of it to reccommend it as "Further Reading" at the end of their website.
Chris Bessert wrote: > Wikipedia? Hell, just tonight I found out the Wisconsin Historical > Commission -- a part of the state government -- copied several passages > directly from my (former) Wisconsin Highways site. (Some of this infor- > mation is changing as I'm migrating it over to the new site, but the > old site is still there for comparison sake.)
> For example, here are two passages -- mine written in 1998 and theirs > "copyright" 2003:
> > The information was made "publicly available" because someone busted > > their ass, did some research and published it. It takes time, effort, > > energy, and even money to put it out there.
> > Public != Free
> > And just because there is not a "precise resemblance" does not make it > > legal to repost as if it was one's own work.
> > Many of us wish your special brand of stupidity wasn't "publicly > > available"...
> Oh mister moron, yeah you. > Where do you suppose he got the information from? > The information was obtained from public sources, such as DOT, and > observings of the actual construction, among other avenues. > He even names his sources. Therefor, he can not claim copyright on work > which is not of his own true creation.
Actually st00pid, I did the research, wrote it in my own words and terms and provided diagrams and other historical information, correctly cited it, therefore I could copyright materials that were written by me. Wiki took it upon themselves (whoever they are) to copy the research that I did and use it.
I see st00pid never did attend high school or even in college, as doing what Wiki and others have done would have gotten you an E or have you expelled.
Well, a little more research led me to the *real* culprit in this case: an engineering firm that has been doing business with WisDOT for many years. I had corresponded with someone from their firm a year or two ago... and now I know why! From the Wisc Historical Society website:
"Architectural historians from Mead & Hunt wrote the text included in the pages and collected current and historic images."
Yes, I plan on drafting a polite e-mail to the fine folks at the Wisc Historical Society to inform them of the situation. Since it was the Mead & Hunt folks that actually did the plagarizing, I won't get too snippy with the Historical Society folks. I think I'll just ask them to cite me as a source and include my (new) Wisconsin Highways website as a listing in their "Suggested Reading" section.
Now, as for the Mead & Hunt people, I don't know what I'll do about that yet. Maybe the Historical Society people have an idea...
While I shouldn't acknowledge your stupidity with a response, yes, Timothy, I will be doing something about it. You don't know how many times I've had to go after copyright violations, either from my web- sites or, more commonly, from my cartographic works. This, unfortu- nately, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yes... a listing of their plagiarism from my website.
> No matter how you present it, a list CAN NOT be copyrighted.
No shit, dumbass, but my PROSE can be. The information was obviously copied from my website -- which is fully copyrighted -- and in a couple cases, a few of the words were rearranged.
> You have merely taken what has been public domain information long before > their was an internet and put it into your own words.
Yes, and they copied it. I am not claiming copyright on the information, you dumbass, I am claiming copyright on my own words and sentence con- struction. You truly have demonstrated you have absolutely no knowledge of copyright law, Richard. On the other hand, as a person who publishes cartographic works (those are "maps," Richard), I have had to become rather proficient in the workings of copyright law in order to protect my interests. And, just like with maps, I am fully within my rights to place a COPYRIGHT on the MAP, while I cannot copyright the INFORMATION contained on that map. (Elementary, my dear Richard!)
> WHC merely copied your format.
No, they copied my words. I don't give a shit about the format -- that isn't copyrightable -- but I do care about MY words.
> So what are you gonna do about it hot shot? Sue the bastards for > infringement?
No, "dumbass" (since we're calling people names), I am going to politely ask the Wisconsin Historical Society to rectify the situation. This may include citing my website as a source, adding a link to it in the "Suggested Reading" section and making the error of the original article author's actions known.
> You'll have to represent yourself because no attorney will take the case. > The judge would tell you not to slam the door on your way out of his > chambers. > Judge Judy would have a field day. > Judge Mathis would rip you apart.
Why even open your mouth, Richard? US-27 still ends in Fort Wayne, I-40 still does NOT end in Raleigh, and you STILL don't know jack about copyright law. While I am not going to hire a lawyer and I am not going to court over this, the situation will be rectified. Period.
And, yes, if I wanted to get a lawyer, there are dozens who will take ANY case, so there wouldn't be a problem there. But, only a moron would jump to such a conclusion...
> When you idiots understand what a copyright protects, then bitch about > infringement.
Idiots? Yeah, that's a laugh. I published an original work in MY OWN WORDS which was fully copyrighted and documented to that effect. Some- one else copied MY OWN WORDS and published them in another place under their own copyright. That, my moronic friend, is called copyright vio- lation.
I am not, nor is anyone else here, pissed that someone else took facts that I had already written about and then created their own independent work using those same facts. That would not be copyright violation, Richard. If it were, I'd be in violation with everything I ever wrote, as I deal exclusively in non-fiction and, therefore, am always writing about ACTUAL things and conditions -- things and conditions which any- one else could conceivably write about as well. But, when someone takes YOUR words from YOUR own mouth and claims them as their own, THAT is what is against the law and THAT is what I (and the others here) want rectified.
As opposed to the Wikipedia situation, which is a different animal, I have full confidence that when the Wisconsin Historical Society is apprised of the situation, they will do whatever they can to rectify it, as the original author does not work for them.
Richard: Next time you want to comment on something like this, do YOUR own research FIRST instead of spewing crap that is false and makes no sense.
Sorry for replying late. I only discovered this issue was happening when I read a comment on Kuro5hin.org That information on our copyright violation procedure is incorrect. We have a procedure for removing copyright violations from the database. The procedure is as follows:
Edit the article and delete all the content from the page. Replace it with the text {{copyvio|url=http://the.link.to/the/page}}. Then go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations, scroll to the date that you found the copyright violation and edit that section. Add the test [[article]] from [http://the.link.to/the/page] - ~~~~ and we will investigate. If after 7 days we find we don't have copyright permission we delete the article from the system so that noone can see it. All the history and all the contributions will be gone.
If you have found specific copyright violations that have NOT been resolved, I will be more than happy to assist as I am an administrator on that site. The last thing we want is to cause good people grief!
Please, allow us to sort out any issues. You can even post a message on my talk page anonymously by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu and clicking on the + sign and adding a comment. I will endeavour to resolve the issue or refer them on to another trusted site administrator to help me out.
Incidently, if anyone DOES have any good info they want to add, please feel free to add it :) And I'm asking that if you have good information from another website and you want to add it that you source where you got that information from!
