User talk:Dianapratchett

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia attempts to summarize its sources and so the detailed list of allegations against Anita Silvey are not appropriate to the project. Further, we don't leave comments about the process on the article pages themselves, we do things like this: leave comments on talk pages. While I did remove the bulk of the comparison, which given it's length was a potential copyright issue, I did leave the initial controversy (and removed some other problems I saw with self-promotion about Silvey on the page). I am not sure if that blog qualifies as a reliable source so if there is better coverage of this controversy in a respected journal, like School Library Journal, that would be better evidence and avoid any potential biography of a living person issues. If you wish to discuss further I'm happy to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no copyright issue

What possible basis could there be for a copyright issue?

Anita Silvey removed the section including the examples. Where were you then? Why is it when I set the record straight again, you delete part of the verification?

You seem to be protecting her for some reason. Why are ten examples out of many more "too detailed?"

Diana PratchettDianapratchett (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you check anything before you implied that the source was biased?

Did you check anything before you implied that the source was biased? Everything single quote is accurate.

School Library Journal is unlikely to publish a piece, no matter how well documented, that reflects poorly on a former Houghton and Horn Book editor. If you know about the field, you know that.

Diana Pratchett Dianapratchett (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Dina, I can tell you find this issue important and I can understand why. Hopefully this explanation will help explain things. One thing I hope you can join me in doing is assuming good faith.

As to where I was in April, I was not monitoring the page then. I am now. Silvey should not have removed the section, though she does have some rights as a living person about the kind of information put out there. If information isn't backed up by reliable sources Wikipedia rules say we can't include it. If information is backed by reliable sources it can be included whether or not she likes it. We take pages about living people very seriously. I didn't say the source is biased I said it might not meet Wikipedia's rules about what is considered a reliable source. This is an important distinction.

You're right that SLJ is unlikely to cover this sort of conflict, however all information must be tied back to a reliable source. There's an excellent chance that the blog in question is not a reliable source and any information on it can't be referenced on Wikipedia. Those are just the rules.

As to the copyright concern, we have to summarize what other people say, we can't just copy their work. In this case the comparison between Silvey and the reviews is the Copyright of the blog. Pasting 10 examples that they made is a copyright infringement of that work. Summarizing the accusations is what is necessary and what I tried to leave in there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A leader in the field of children's literature is a verified plagiarist. Until now, Wikipedia was the only high-profile place that acknowledged that. As an unpaid SLJ book reviewer myself, I think it's important to publicize someone who steals other people's words and ideas. I don't have an outlet to do that and now you have watered down this outlet.

Anyone could have checked any of those plagiarism examples that were in the Wikipedia article before. Now a reader will have to take another step, unlike most Wikipedia articles that welcome detailed information.

You seem to be saying a webpage with meticulously documented and easily verifiable facts is not a viable source. Why not? Every single reference I looked up there was completely accurate.

There is no copyright issue with quoting from a blog that is made up of fair use short excerpts from published material. Nothing quoted on Wikipedia from the blog was written by the blogger.

Diana Pratchett Dianapratchett (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

answer re sources, copyright

A leader in the field of children's literature is a verified plagiarist. Until now, Wikipedia was the only high-profile place that acknowledged that. As an unpaid SLJ book reviewer myself, I think it's important to publicize someone who steals other people's words and ideas. I don't have an outlet to do that and now you have watered down this outlet.

Anyone could have checked any of those plagiarism examples that were in the Wikipedia article before. Now a reader will have to take another step, unlike most Wikipedia articles that welcome detailed information.

You seem to be saying a webpage with meticulously documented and easily verifiable facts is not a viable source. Why not? Every single reference I looked up there was completely accurate.

There is no copyright issue with quoting from a blog that is made up of fair use short excerpts from published material. Nothing quoted on Wikipedia from the blog was written by the blogger.

Diana Pratchett Dianapratchett (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a problem that Wikipedia is the only place you can find this information. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Wikipedia is designed to reflect what reliable sources say, not be the place saying it. Here is a couple of passages from our policies (all formatting in the original):

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;
2. is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research);
3. relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or
4. relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

In reviewing these policies myself in light of this discussion I have removed the section altogether. It might be true but what matters is what reliable sources say. Is this frustrating at times? Absolutely. However it's the way the Wikipedia operates. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

verifiable

How about this? I can go to that blog, copy the quotes from Silvey that show plagiarism, and track down a link to each review that she stole from. Would Wikipedia accept that?

(Just out of curiosity, why does it say Silvey's SLJ article on the Newbery is "influential," and then give a NYT source that says nothing about it being influential? Nor, as far as I know, has it influenced a thing with the award criteria or the organization that gives the awards.)

Diana Pratchett Dianapratchett (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Diana, unfortunately the method you propose is considered original research and also doesn't work with the policies and guidelines. The New York Times piece is cited because it references Silvey's SLJ article, thus supporting its claim that she wrote an influential article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

original research

Since I didn't post the blog about the plagiarism, it wouldn't be original research. It would be taking someone else's research and providing links, which as far as I can tell is what you want on Wikipedia. Each link would be to a source that meets your source criteria, either the review source itself or a site like Amazon/B&N. The source for Silvey's plagiarized quotes would be her book with page numbers.

The Wikipedia section on original research reads, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." That's exactly what I would do, fact by fact.

Diana Pratchett Dianapratchett (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Except that what you're describing still is original research as Wikipedia defines it:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

My bottom line summary for you: what is written on Wikipedia needs to backed up by independent reliable secondary sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Dianapratchett, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

If you don't think this is plagiarism, then you are right to censor it from Wikipedia.

Anita Silvey's 500 Great Books for Teens, Part 1 Below are some quotes from reviews published before 2006, followed by similar or verbatim wording from 500 Great Books for Teens by Anita Silvey (Houghton, 2006). The comparisons come from a partial check of Silvey's book against review sources. The page numbers are from the Silvey book.

Running with Scissors, p. 15

Kirkus 2002: manic-depressive poet mother and cold, alcoholic father Silvey 2006: manic-depressive mother, a poet, and his cold, alcoholic father

Kirkus 2002: unnerved by their squalid household Silvey 2006: unnerved by their squalid household

Kirkus 2002: became close with irascible daughters Hope and Natalie, participating in their substance abuse and delinquency, helping them wreck the Finches' dilapidated Victorian house. Silvey 2006: became friends with the Finches' daughters, joining them in their substance abuse and wrecking the family's Victorian house.

Kirkus 2002: doctor coached Burroughs to stage a suicide attempt in order to get out of going to school Silvey 2006: Finch helped Burroughs to stage a suicide attempt in order to avoid school

Kirkus 2002: grotesque Library Journal 2002: Burroughs has written an entertaining yet horrifying account Silvey 2006: Burroughs recounts a horrifying, grotesque story

Library Journal 2002: isn't for the squeamish Silvey 2006: shouldn't be read by the squeamish

Farewell to Manzanar, p. 21

Sparknotes 2003: cramped living conditions, badly prepared food, unfinished barracks, and swirling dust Silvey 2006: cramped living conditions, badly prepared food, swilling [sic] dust

Sparknotes 2003: the family begins to disintegrate Silvey 2006: the family began to disintegrate

Scholastic.com/About the Book: fear, confusion, and bewilderment Silvey 2006: fear, confusion, and bewilderment

Bad Boy, p. 24

VOYA 2001/Nicole Cook: gang violence, and a speech impediment Silvey 2006: gang violence, and a speech impediment

VOYA 2001: reaffirm one's belief in the power of reading and writing Silvey 2006: attests to the power of reading and writing

VOYA 2001: honesty, humor, and hope Silvey 2006: honesty, humor, and hope

VOYA 2001: Myers struggled to express himself on paper because he could not do so verbally. Silvey 2006: as he struggles to speak, he finds that he can write what he can't say

Speak, p. 36

Teenreads.com Review/Dana Schwartz - this review is not dated but mentions Speak as a National Book Award Finalsit but not as a Printz winner, so probably written the year Speak was published, 1999.

Teenreads: calling the police on an end-of-the-summer party Silvey 2006: called the police from an end-of-the-summer party

Teenreads: ostracized by everyone in the school, including her best friends Silvey 2006: ostracized by everyone in the school, including her best friends

Teenreads: dangerous jock who roams the halls and torments her. Silvey 2006: dangerous jock who torments her.

Teenreads: "I am OUTCAST," she thinks on the first day of school Silvey 2006: "I am outcast," she realizes on the first day of school

Teenreads: you spend most of your time harbored in Melinda's mind Silvey 2006: spends most of the book harbored in Melinda's mind

Diana Pratchett Dianapratchett (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dianapratchett: I think it violates norms around plagiarism. I would initiate appropriate academic proceedings if a student did it in a class of mine. My opinions don't get to decide if something belongs in Wikipedia or not. Instead I need to reflect what reliable sources have to say. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

violates the norms?

VOYA 2001: honesty, humor, and hope

Silvey 2006: honesty, humor, and hope

Teenreads: you spend most of your time harbored in Melinda's mind

Silvey 2006: spends most of the book harbored in Melinda's mind

Kirkus 2002: unnerved by their squalid household

Silvey 2006: unnerved by their squalid household

I don't know what you mean by the phrase "violates the norms of plagiarism," which implies there's some gray area here. This is outright plagiarism. Silvey takes the well-turned phrases, the emphases, and the analysis of unpaid or underpaid reviewers; uses them verbatim or nearly so; and presents them as her own. Look at the alliteration in the first phrase; the lovely metaphor of "harbored" in the second; the carefully-chosen adjective "squalid" in the third. Good reviewers spend hours reading and re-reading books and writing reviews. It takes many reviewers years of practice to get good at it. Silvey stole their work outright.

Please don't say the removal of mention of facts about her plagiarism doesn't rest on your opinion. The information was in the Wikipedia article for five years, according to the history. Apparently the opinion of anyone in your role who looked at it earlier was that it was fine. Your opinion--of what's a copyright issue or a reliable source or original research, depending which argument you shifted to--has censored this information. The information is verified and verifiable; the sources are a published book and published review journals; the evidence is presented without conjecture or animus.

The result here is protection of someone who has made money and built a reputation by stealing other people's work. Why that's your goal is a mystery to me.

What I mean is that in an academic setting there are expectations (norms) around plagiarism. This violates those norms. My goal is to build an excellent encyclopedia. Wikipedia as we both know is highly imperfect but it is at its best when it lives up to its guidelines about sourcing. Those guidelines say we have to have reliable independent secondary sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)