40

I have suggested a tag wiki edit that was approved 3 to 1, but the reviewer who rejected it took this argument:

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; try creating something useful to this community specifically, and be sure to attribute the original author. See: How to reference material written by others.

Which I understand is possible but not the case. In fact I congratulate the reviewer for taking the task seriously instead of being a robo-reviewer.

As I have not clarified the code is from my authority, mainly because I didn't think I have to, I'm wondering:

  • Is it necessary to indicate that the code is of my authority if I'm the one who suggested the edit?

  • If so, is there a proper way to indicate that code (or content in general) is not plagiarized and everybody is free to use it as they wish. Just a note? Code licence?

9
  • 6
    Side note: I saw that suggestion in the queue and had to skip it because it has some minor grammar mistakes (e.g. "Developers has the ability...") and I don't have enough rep to improve tag wiki edits. Somebody should fix those... Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 16:08
  • 5
    Well, that would be one way, leaving the grammar and spelling errors is a good way to indicate it is original content ;) Don't worry about it, this is why it takes more than one reviewer to reject an edit. Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 16:30
  • 14
    I'd love to hear how that reviewer came to the conclusion the content was copied from an external source. I cannot find any correlation between what you wrote and online sources. Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 17:50
  • 1
    @MartijnPieters It's possible the reviewer was focusing on the bit about "generic descriptions" and did not like that the wiki provides no explicit usage guidance. Though, that's only a reject reason for excerpts, if I understand the recent changes correctly.
    – Air
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 19:26
  • @ThisSuitIsBlackNot yes I saw that horrible grammar mistake right after press "Save edit" button, and I agree: someone should fix it. I wish my English was as good as my coding skills.
    – dic19
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 20:04
  • @HansPassant unless the original author had the very same limited English skills than me :P
    – dic19
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 20:17
  • @MartijnPieters I'd love to hear that too. Regardless its interpretation (right or wrong) IMO reviewer made a valid point: don't plagiarize external content. I'll follow Deduplicator suggestions to prevent this from happening again.
    – dic19
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 20:22
  • 3
    I don't think this rejection reason was appropriate. On the other hand, such a large amount of code doesn't look appropriate from a tag wiki. It should probably be in an answer (possibly a self-answer, but do think of a good question, not “what's an example of …” — search examples of canonical questions for inspiration), and linked from the tag wiki. Commented Oct 17, 2014 at 11:48
  • Thanks for the suggestion @Gilles. I didn't think about a canonical question but seems appropriate in this case and I like the idea.
    – dic19
    Commented Oct 17, 2014 at 12:14

1 Answer 1

30

If you use content you previously published elsewhere, there are two ways to go about it:

  1. Do full-disclosure that you are the author and where you previously published it. Beware of excessive self-promotion though.
  2. (Only for tag-wiki's) Explicitly and unambiguously mention the source and that it's your own in the edit-summary, but not in the post itself.

As long as you retain copyright, you have the right to re-publish however you want, but if it looks plagiarised, it will be handled as such, because we probably will fail to link the authorship to you.

3
  • Thanks! I'll keep that in mind for future edits.
    – dic19
    Commented Oct 15, 2014 at 20:16
  • 10
    But we cannot be sure that those who say they are the author really are the author. Everyone could say that. In the end we just have to have good faith that no contribution violates the copyright. I would even go so far and say that authorship or sufficient rights are implicitly implied everytime in every question and every answer or every suggested edit. A link to an external resource if existing is great but a footnote like "from me" is almost worthless and should not be required. Commented Oct 16, 2014 at 18:50
  • 3
    @Trilarion: Yes, we must assume good faith. But when our contribution is already public somewhere else and the link is not obvious or at least looks probable, reducing the chance of mistaking it as plagiarism is always a good idea. Commented Oct 16, 2014 at 20:43

You must log in to answer this question.

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