Wiki copy-pasters MUST DIE

[Darth Wong]

Just a note from your friendly neighbourhood admin asking everyone to crack down on copy-paste bullshit. Delete, revert, ban, destroy, whatever is necessary to keep these fucking imbeciles from trying to turn the Imperial Wiki into a copy-paste wasteland. And don't give them a nice long waiting period before acting either; they should know the policies before they post.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Not sure I follow. What's wrong with (for example) copying the calculations you have on your main page for the Death Star superlaser and then pasting them to the wiki, changing the tone-of-voice to fit, naturally?

I haven't done it - specifically because I felt that you might object to such copying and pasting. But now you're saying it out in the open so I want to know why you feel it's wrong to copy-paste other peoples' facts.

Or are you saying that's ok, and it's only their creative interpretation of those facts that we oughtn't to copy and paste, because that I get 100%.

-AHMAD

[phongn]

There are people copying-and-pasting entire articles from other wikis. That's not okay.

[Lord Revan]

copy-pasting generally is either passing some one else work as your own or serious lack of source criticims (you should actually be some what critical about your sources and it helps if you write thing in your own words rather then just copy-pasting it)

[MKSheppard]

Jawohl Mein Fuh...Mister president!

[Master_Baerne]

The wiki copy-pasters shall be used to ensure that there is not a mineshaft gap!

[General Zod]

Not sure I follow. What's wrong with (for example) copying the calculations you have on your main page for the Death Star superlaser and then pasting them to the wiki, changing the tone-of-voice to fit, naturally?

Why can't you just do the calculations yourself?

[BountyHunterSAx]

Why can't you just do the calculations yourself?

Do you *really* need to ask that? Or does me saying that I lack the scientific knowledge to do so make you happy? What drives your need to respond to every third post I make with a disparaging comment?

My field is Computer Science, BioInformatics specifically. I'm 20 - not even out of college yet. I do not pretend to be qualified and genius, and am not well versed in theoretical astrophysics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, or even Newtonian Physics. Further, I am not foolish enough to try and 're-invent the wheel' by doing the painstaking calculations fresh when they have already been done.

There do exist places and venues where I *am* knowledgeable, there are places where even non-knowledgeable people ought to contribute. Thusfar I have not made the mistake of treating SDN as such a place. If you insist that everyone who wants to use knowledge they can find must understand the underlying calculations, then you are denying the worth of the *entire* concept of abstraction as taught in Computer Science. The concept of a black-box; that I don't need to know *how* a thing works, only what to put in, and what to expect out, to make use of it.

I don't know how the calculations are derived; short of parroting (not wholesale copying and pasting, but certainly parroting) what Wong has already written my only option is to shut up and post nothing. This is what I did, as I was not sure whether or not such parroting would be permissible - - - and now that Wong is openly saying it is not I want to know why. What are you trying to tell me? That you object to my not having done the calculations personally, amateurishly? That I should *not* use SDN as a source? That in fact I should not use sources at all?

No, I can't see any reason for you to ask me this question except to insult my qualifications. And while flaming is permissible when people are being stupid on this board I don't see that you've shown me being stupid - just insulted me politely as a question. I have openly stated in more than one place that I do not *have* qualifications of this nature and I don't front like I do. Don't fucking challenge me to do so.

-AHMAD

[General Zod]

There do exist places and venues where I *am* knowledgeable, there are places where even non-knowledgeable people ought to contribute. Thusfar I have not made the mistake of treating SDN as such a place. If you insist that everyone who wants to use knowledge they can find must understand the underlying calculations, then you are denying the worth of the *entire* concept of abstraction as taught in Computer Science. The concept of a black-box; that I don't need to know *how* a thing works, only what to put in, and what to expect out, to make use of it.

So don't post in places where you don't know how the numbers work? It's honestly not that difficult. I stay the fuck away from threads that require calculations specifically because I'm not that good with math.

I don't know how the calculations are derived; short of parroting (not wholesale copying and pasting, but certainly parroting) what Wong has already written my only option is to shut up and post nothing. This is what I did, as I was not sure whether or not such parroting would be permissible - - - and now that Wong is openly saying it is not I want to know why. What are you trying to tell me? That you object to my not having done the calculations personally, amateurishly? That I should *not* use SDN as a source? That in fact I should not use sources at all?

If you don't know how the calcs work then how can you know whether you're pasting a reliable article? If you do know how they work then why not just create an article yourself instead of parroting someone else?

No, I can't see any reason for you to ask me this question except to insult my qualifications. And while flaming is permissible when people are being stupid on this board I don't see that you've shown me being stupid - just insulted me politely as a question. I have openly stated in more than one place that I do not *have* qualifications of this nature and I don't front like I do. Don't fucking challenge me to do so.

It wasn't an insult jackass. But feel free to push this martyr complex you seem to have some more, and pull the coathanger from your head as the abortion attempt seems to have failed while you're at it. (Since you seem to have difficulty telling, that was in fact an actual insult).

[Illuminatus Primus]

What's wrong with copy-and-pasting Mike's math and numerical results in of themselves? This IS about the website; just cite the appropriate debate where the numbers and calc appears or the appropriate page of the main site.

However, you should not plagarise Mike's discussion of it itself. You should put it in your own words, quote original arguments from their source, and craft a meaningful discussion in its own right.

[General Zod]

What's wrong with copy-and-pasting Mike's math and numerical results in of themselves? This IS about the website; just cite the appropriate debate where the numbers and calc appears or the appropriate page of the main site.

Calculations without a discussion aren't of much use though are they?

[BountyHunterSAx]

If you don't know how the calcs work then how can you know whether you're pasting a reliable article? If you do know how they work then why not just create an article yourself instead of parroting someone else?

If the source is reliable; and you are taking information from that source, then the article is reliable. Understanding of the calculations is not necessary to glean information from an English prose passage about them. As I mention earlier in this same page, the changes that would be put would simply be point-of-view changes and tense-changes; possibly word order as it would be re-typed. In short - while basic reading comprehension would be needed to know that I'm posting a reliable interpretation of the source material, understanding of the material itself would not.

Now, as for knowing whether or not the source itself is reliable; well that just comes with the territory doesn't it? I know that on the SDN Imperial Wiki, information from the SDN website will undoubtedly be a solid source. Further, I know that information from scientific textbooks and canon sources is reliable. Whether I understand the text itself, as long as I can comprehend the words' meanings and order I should be able to use them and parrot them off on the wiki....except for the fact that Wong says we can't copy-paste.



-AHMAD

[Illuminatus Primus]

What's wrong with copy-and-pasting Mike's math and numerical results in of themselves? This IS about the website; just cite the appropriate debate where the numbers and calc appears or the appropriate page of the main site.

Calculations without a discussion aren't of much use though are they?

He said copy-and-paste the calc, and you responded that one shouldn't write articles with math if you have to do that. Therefore you were criticizing even copy-and-pasting with citation Mike's calculative work, even if he wrote his own original description and explanation.

[brianeyci]

What's wrong with copy-and-pasting Mike's math and numerical results in of themselves? This IS about the website; just cite the appropriate debate where the numbers and calc appears or the appropriate page of the main site.

However, you should not plagarise Mike's discussion of it itself. You should put it in your own words, quote original arguments from their source, and craft a meaningful discussion in its own right.

It's not about the website. It's about Star Trek versus Star Wars. Putting sources in your own words or ideas in your own words without referencing them is plagarism. Depending on how strict, even putting ideas in your own words and referencing them is plagarism, especially if someone just rewords an entire article and slaps it on expecting to get credit, with one puny reference to the source. I realize everybody gets their ideas from somewhere, but in general a guideline is if the fact is common knowledge, it doesn't have to be sourced. Exactly what is common knowledge is debatable especially in an encyclopedia article this specific. The wiki is not supposed to be a shrine to Mike, and making such calculations and doing the scaling on your own I almost see as a prerequisite. Specific work like calculations should always be sourced if not your own.

I honestly don't want to encourage the kind of lazy of just typing in a number into the asteroid destruction calculator. That kind of author who doesn't and can't do the work himself the wiki doesn't really need. If an author can't do the calculation himself, then better to omit calculation entirely than take calculation from some other source and prostrating to it.

In other words I see no benefit in adopting a policy allowing Mike worshipping. It's not allowed on the board to make posts just parroting Mike's calculations or putting Mike's calculations into your own words. There's even a fucking me-too rule. Scaling and making original calculations might be a pain in the ass, but I see no problem in encouraging original work. I hate wikipedia's nonsense about no original research, and it should be different here.

There's also a small fact that Mike's work is generally outdated, sometimes massively so. So someone wishing to post Mike's work has to use a critical eye and sometimes do the calculations and scaling themselves with reference to modern Trek.

[General Zod]

He said copy-and-paste the calc, and you responded that one shouldn't write articles with math if you have to do that. Therefore you were criticizing even copy-and-pasting with citation Mike's calculative work, even if he wrote his own original description and explanation.

That sort of brings things back to my actual point. How can they make any kind of meaningful article discussing the calculations if all they can do is copy and paste the numbers but not do them on their own?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Mike worshipping? We're talking about using an individual item of data and citing it directly; it can be assessed on those grounds as the basis of any article.

[Connor MacLeod]

By itself, copy and pasting the calc probably is not any more worse than copying and pasting an agument Mike has made. The problme is, though, I think alot of people can do this off Mike's site, paste it elsewhere, yet not really understand how he arrived at them or what they mean, thus they are totally incapable of arguing or defending them effectively (and they look like morons.)

I speak from personal experience here, because I've seen people use the 40K stuff I do in OSF and post it without realy understanding the underlying principles I used to derive the calc.

Having the person "do the calc" yourself is more work, but "more work" ought to be encouraged. If they have no fuckign clue about it, ,and coudln't work it out on their own (or at least understand how it was worked out and what it all means) they shouldn't be fucking using it.

[Eleas]

Having the person "do the calc" yourself is more work, but "more work" ought to be encouraged. If they have no fuckign clue about it, ,and coudln't work it out on their own (or at least understand how it was worked out and what it all means) they shouldn't be fucking using it.

Indeed. I'm considering (that is, outlining) an article myself for the iWiki, and didn't for more than a moment entertain the idea that I should craft it as some sort of bastardized collage. If wikis do have merit, that merit lies in everyone being able to contribute. Some people seem to interpret this to mean that Wiki articles should intentionally be written with far less attention to detail and understanding of the subject, as if sheer text mass trumps all.

Yes, the accuracy of wiki articles is questionable; that's the nature of wiki. But to make that a virtue helps no-one. A text on the wiki isn't subject to stringent quality control, and that does mean it'll mostly lack the quality of an official publication; it does not mean one should strive for slapdash composition in the first place.

[Illuminatus Primus]

By itself, copy and pasting the calc probably is not any more worse than copying and pasting an agument Mike has made. The problme is, though, I think alot of people can do this off Mike's site, paste it elsewhere, yet not really understand how he arrived at them or what they mean, thus they are totally incapable of arguing or defending them effectively (and they look like morons.)

I speak from personal experience here, because I've seen people use the 40K stuff I do in OSF and post it without realy understanding the underlying principles I used to derive the calc.

Having the person "do the calc" yourself is more work, but "more work" ought to be encouraged. If they have no fuckign clue about it, ,and coudln't work it out on their own (or at least understand how it was worked out and what it all means) they shouldn't be fucking using it.

I agree someone who doesn't get Newtonian kinematics or thermodynamics at the barest conceptual level should be citing others' calculations and describing them, but I also don't want drawn out calcs at length. Nor do I think that citing is always wrong; surely the admin/contributor staff has the meaningful discretion to distinguish between the appropriate and abusive, no?

[Scottish Ninja]

Here's a thought - perhaps there could be a page or set of pages for calculations, and then articles can reference calculations from there. That way people can read articles without suffering from "no math disease" and people who want to see the calcs can easily do so. Would that possibly work?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't necessarily disagree with anyone here about any of this. I simply don't know if one wants to have a blanket hard-and-fast rule when there are appropriate times to use others' material and cite them as you would professionally. Those instances can be evaluated individually with discretion without a blanket rule.

[Stark]

Using the <ref> tag, anything dropped into an article can be easily linked to it's source. The prevents 'pasting and running' where the contribution isn't really contributing, and allows later editors to track back the information and elaborate/correct/etc. After all, I totally misread Mike's propulsion page, and that would have been caught much faster if we'd had <ref>s there.