38

I added some usage guidelines to in this suggested edit. One of the reviewers did see this as plagiarism and rejected on the basis of

This edit copies a significant amount of content from an external source. Generic descriptions such as encyclopedia articles and ad copy do not provide useful guidance; ...

Most of the other reasons for rejection of suggested edits are subjective, and one cannot argue about them. "A significant amount" is also subjective, but I cannot find anything online that even vaguely resembles my addition:

Use this tag for YAML specific questions only, not for questions about programs that happen to have their configuration in a YAML format (use just their specific tags e.g.: jekyll, travis-cl).

I asked the reviewer (in a comment to an answer of his) where he found the source I copied from, but that question was not answered, the reason for closing being stated as "Generic descriptions such as encyclopedia articles and ad copy do not provide useful guidance; try creating something useful to this community specifically". That on its own would be fine as it is subjective. But that is just a side note preceded by the more severe accusation of plagiarism.

Is it OK to contact a reviewer in this case (or similar cases) to ask for clarification?

Is this accusation of plagiarism recorded in any way? Or only if the post gets rejected? Or only on the basis of multiple people rejecting it based of "copied a significant amount of content"? Or not at all apart from the review history?

I am primarily interested because this is more serious then something not being useful or not significant. IMO a reviewer should be able to substantiate their accusation, even if the system currently doesn't allow them leaving even just a URL pointing to the copied content. But I don't know if there is an appropriate way to ask for that, whether one has the right to do so, and/or whether it should be done at all. And that partly depends on the fact that I don't know what the consequences are (if any).

6
  • 22
    Looks like a robo-reject, copy/pasting something he uses frequently. He rejected many more tag wiki edits. That happens when users dust off hundreds of reviews in a few hours. Just ignore, it takes more than a single user to reject edits. If you're mad-as-hell then ask a moderator to have a look-see. Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 10:21
  • @HansPassant I am not mad, I was just curious. I did not even look at the other edits of the reviewer. The edit got approved, and the exchange with the reviewer ended in him asking whether the vote could be changed (not possible, but what I would call a happy end). I was just in general wondering what to do as I really think plagiarism should be substantiable (assuming that is a verb).
    – Anthon
    Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 10:33
  • 4
    I don't consider the rejection reason valid, but I do think one needs to be careful taking it as an accusation of plagiarism (and accusing the reviewer of making that accusation). Copying is not automatically plagiarism and the standard text doesn't say rejection is for plagiarism. Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 15:12
  • 3
    @HansPassant No copy/pasting necessary, that's one of the canned rejection reasons for suggested edits to tag wikis. Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 17:26
  • Plagiarism is a much, much less severe offense on SO than it is in the academic community, so I wouldn't worry about the accusation very much.
    – Kevin
    Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 18:09
  • I think your edit was good and obviously "original" content. But I would suggest that the excerpt should be shortened up. Probably just 2 sentences. Commented Jul 3, 2015 at 2:59

5 Answers 5

31

"Is it OK to contact a reviewer in this case (or similar cases) to ask for clarification?"

Not really, since the only way to do that, is to comment about the review on a post that's completely unrelated to the edit / review.

Basically, to discuss the rejection reason, you'd have to have some kind of off-topic discussion somewhere.

"Is this accusation of plagiarism recorded in any way?"

Technically, yes. The rejection vote (with its reason) is stored in the edit history of that tag, but I'm pretty darn certain your account doesn't get an "Possibly plagiarized something" flag. I'd wager my account on that.

Any way, I wouldn't worry too much about 1 single suggestion rejection. You'd have to be misbehaving significantly before action is taken on your account.

8
  • I would still be interested if and how the system handles these things. I know they have the edit history. And I do think the Martians have other things on their mind when they take over the world than to search the Stack Overflow databases for plagiarisers. (Thanks for the review of the tag wiki edit, if nothing else my post here possible sped up the review process)
    – Anthon
    Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 10:38
  • That's the Meta effect :-) Aside from saving the review vote, the system really doesn't do anything with a single vote. If someone is suggesting a lot of edits that are getting rejected as <reason x>, as far as I know, a moderator flag is raised.
    – Cerbrus
    Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 10:43
  • 4
    This is another case where a review-specific comment thread would be helpful: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/298174/… Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 17:52
  • 2
    @Cerbrus - account wagering sounds like a high risk SO meta-game, I'm in!
    – SW4
    Commented Jul 1, 2015 at 7:08
  • So, are you willing to lose your account if such a flag does exist? :P
    – Cerbrus
    Commented Jul 1, 2015 at 7:15
  • "since the only way to do that, is to comment about the review on a post that's completely unrelated" You can also invite the reviewer to a chat room.
    – bjb568
    Commented Jul 3, 2015 at 14:11
  • 1
    @bjb568: In my experience, people don't really appreciate being invited to rooms like that.
    – Cerbrus
    Commented Jul 3, 2015 at 14:39
  • It's better than a random comment thread.
    – bjb568
    Commented Jul 3, 2015 at 14:47
10

Is this accusation of plagiarism recorded in any way?

Probably depends on what you mean by this.

If you mean does this vote put a giant note in your profile that says "this guy is a plagiarizer", then no (or at least I am pretty sure it isn't).

But yes, the suggested edit reviews themselves (including the votes and the reasons) are maintained in the database, so technically can be seen by anyone who has the link. And I believe they are part of the data dump as well, so they would be available to anyone who want to query the data dump and through Data Explorer.SE.

Is it OK to contact a reviewer in this case (or similar cases) to ask for clarification?

I'd say that doing in this in excess is definitely not OK. If everyone started asking for clarification for every rejected edit, you would have a lot of irrelevant noise on posts. You might be able to get away with doing this once, but don't make a habit of it.

If you have a why was my edit rejected question, just ask about it on meta. And if you have a specific question for a specific reviewer, then you can ping them once and point them to the meta post.

But if your sole reason is to discuss the rejection, then take it to Chat.


However, I thinking you are making way to big a deal of it given your use of the word "accusation". No one is accusing you of anything. All someone did was review your suggested edit and selected a reason that they thought was most appropriate (possibly) in order to provide you feedback on why they did not think it was a good edit. It is just as likely that the user clicked the wrong button and meant to click something else.

5

I agree with the other answers here in that the one rejection is nothing to be too worried about. Further, the rejection doesn't seem valid to me. However, I want to repeat, and strengthen, a point in psubsee2003's answer.

To answer the title

How to handle accusation of plagiarism by reviewer

there was no clear accusation of plagiarism. And to answer

Is this accusation of plagiarism recorded in any way?

there was no clear accusation of plagiarism.

The reject message, even if that was the message purposefully chosen, is not saying "this edit is plagiarism". Yes, it would be used when the author seems to have plagiarized and I concur that the reminder to "be sure to attribute the original author" could be read as an admonishment, but the primary focus of that reject reason is against copied content regardless of whether it is attributed. Copying is not always plagiarism.

As a recent example of one my reviews: https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/8615402. I rejected that edit with this stated reason, because of how the "important notes" are exactly those given in a linked page and the context for that content was absent (the items to which the notes refer appear nowhere else in the wiki).

Was I correct to reject? Possibly not, and my co-reviewers didn't agree with me. Was I accusing the author of plagiarism? Absolutely not: there was attribution there. Would I be upset to be called out for making an explicit accusation of plagiarism? Totally.

3

What I do with "wiki edits" is this: I copy/paste the added text into a search box, search, and see if one or more of the results lights-up in black.

If so, I reject with the "This edit copies..." message.

Note, as also stated by @francescalus, this is not an accusation of plagiarism. It is the pointing out that just copying something from somewhere else on the internet and pasting it into a description serves absolutely zero purpose (information is already out there, no indication of how the tag should be used here).

Read the full message. Realise it is not a plagiarism accusation, then act on the rest of the message.

...however, what it looks like to me is you simply got caught up in someone pasting the who of the description (or the first part) and not your actual change, giving a false-hit.

It would be good for someone with knowledge of the tag to de-paste those first two paragraphs and make the description useful for here.

I reject almost all the tag-wiki edits I see, because they are just pasted. Some helpfully providing a link to where the paste came from (these are probably good intent edits), some with no link (let's say these editors are lazy).

Yours was not copied content, and even if it was, it would not have been marked as plagiarism.

Plagiarism here is only for answers. That is of course serious, there is a flag for it. Sometimes it is just laziness.

Importantly at other times it is a method of trying to get spam to stick. If it contains a new link to a commercial site, consider a spam flag (if clear to any reader) or a custom flag for moderator intervention. If user is new, and posted an answer immediately and it is linking to a commercial site, it is spam.

-6

One generic note on plagiarism, and one which I disagree with academic practices partly because I know myself to be much more dependent on other sources than annotated in my footnotes even if I try:

Plagiarism is not just copying; it is copying from another source, where there is an explicit or implied claim to originality, and the copying is not acknowledged.

I think of one of my favorite pieces, God the Spiritual Father. Probably over 50% is copied from other sources. Now that's copying with inverted comments or blockquotes and explicit statement of sources copied, but it is a favorite work that heavily pulled from the best I could find elsewhere. Wanting to pull from excellence elsewhere is very human, but the problem's not with the copying but the failure of explicit attribution as a quote where there is implied (or explicit) claim to originality.

The last comment on the basenote now, Kevin's "Plagiarism is a much, much less severe offense on SO than it is in the academic community, so I wouldn't worry about the accusation very much," has something to do with SO not being a place where people can claim original ideas as "mine, mine, mine." Some questions, such as, "What is the pattern for/to ______________?" don't even want originality for an answer.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .