-28

This question already has an answer here:

Today I came to review and I was informed I've been kicked off for the review queues for awhile for this:

https://stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/14843211

However, to lose full review queue privileges for this seems particularly unfair to me as a first time offense, and a much grayer area.

Note that 3 other reviewers also approved it, so there is clearly some confusion and need to educate users better and more reasonably in that area. There have been no audits to teach/indicate show that this kind of thing is an issue. I have seen many other tag updates like this, so thought it was the norm.

Does this suggest that reviewing tag updates requires us to google the text and try to figure out the source and wording of every tag wiki update? Should we hire a lawyer or a law firm or research agency to check IP too? I'm just saying it can be hard to know where to draw the line on that stuff when it comes down to it.

To me, this is a whole new gotcha to me and I was completely caught of guard unprepared, and I think, in this case, nailing me to the wall for it is really hitting below the belt or shooting me in the back because there was really no fair warning.

It makes me want to just skip all tag wiki edits in the future so I don't guess wrong or have to spend 5 or 10 minutes or more trying to check source or authenticity on the off-chance that I'll get my derrier in the wringer if someone happens to find out it was taken wholesale from elsewhere.

I mean, even in the real world there is something call "fair use" where you're allowed to copy excerpts from proprietary documents/media. I just didn't realize plagiarism was something that happens here, or that we all as individual have to police it. It seems maybe wiki tag edits should have its own queue due to its different nature from most of the edits, which can be reviewed with more forthrightly.

I don't think you can really say (or treat me) like what I did was egregious neglect as though I was educated, trained, forewarned, and should have known better. I mean, now I know, it is an issue, but just don't think that ways the way to bring it to my attention, since I've put a lot of effort into serving and trying to do the right thing here, and I find this very discouraging.

Can I be let off with a warning this time?

marked as duplicate by gnat, Michael Gaskill, S.L. Barth - Reinstate Monica, Jan Doggen, Toto Jan 12 '17 at 9:08

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
  • 3
    I hardly think it "nails you to the wall". Next time, you'll be much less likely to forget! – Cody Gray Jan 11 '17 at 18:24
  • 2
    Why not just put banana peels on the sidewalk to teach people to watch where they're going too? – clearlight Jan 11 '17 at 18:25
  • 1
    @BhargavRao yes, that is very illuminating in retrospect. – clearlight Jan 11 '17 at 18:27
  • 13
    @clearlight People didn't intentionally suggest a plagiaristic edit just to catch you for not doing it, rather you were punished for not doing your job. A much better analogy would be suspending the janitor for just ignoring the banana peel on the sidewalk that they're being tasked with cleaning because they didn't think it was their job to clean it up. – Servy Jan 11 '17 at 18:28
  • 4
    You've certainly used a lot of hyperbolic metaphors here, all in service of... getting to do more chores? Take a break. Maybe answer some questions. Find a hobby. Maybe study something that might help you gain some perspective on exactly what you're fighting for here. – Heretic Monkey Jan 11 '17 at 18:37
  • 8
    @clearlight you can get tired of it, sure. Does it mean the conversation will progress if you keep up that attitude? Unfortunately, no. I get where you may be coming from, but my point is that you are hurting your argument by throwing "sociopathic", "cruel trolls" and "draconian". If you aren't calm and can't express what you feel without using these words, you will be flogged as "just another ranter"... (and I am SORRY... but you are guilty of approving an inappropriate edit. We can argue the punishment is harsh, but not whether or not you are guilty...) – Patrice Jan 11 '17 at 18:44
  • 1
    @clearlight I am saying that I am able to remain calm and SPEAK about injustice instead of scream atop my lungs. Being able to remain calm is ALWAYS better than screaming or hyperbole. Your question saying "draconian" was there BEFORE you got any answer, so you can't say you only are reactionary. – Patrice Jan 11 '17 at 18:51
  • 1
    @patrice People have to come to meta and beg for mercy justice while the regulars and powerful sneer and pelt. Just ludicrous for so-called technocrats who are theoretically supposed to gauge arguments on their technical merits. – clearlight Jan 11 '17 at 18:51
  • 4
    Slander? Nah, since I didn't say it out loud. Libel, maybe. And I still think you're blowing this way out of proportion, which, as @Patrice has noted, is not helping you. Bombast and bluster rarely help, unless you're running for political office. – Heretic Monkey Jan 11 '17 at 18:52
  • 1
    @clearlight so, considering I am NOT insulting, condescending, or out to prove you wrong... why do you continue with that kind of language with me here? In any case, I am here trying to HELP you get your message across better... and I get that answer. Do you REALLY think that is warranted? – Patrice Jan 11 '17 at 18:53
  • 1
    "nailing me to the wall for it is really hitting below the belt or shooting me in the back" - I'm just trying to picture that – Michael Myers Jan 11 '17 at 18:53
  • 13
    Whenever I get caught in private doing something dumb, I usually pretend it didn't happen, rather than run around shouting about it. – Ripped Off Jan 11 '17 at 19:00
  • 1
    To be completely honest, I downvoted this without reading it first because Draconian. – Don't Panic Jan 11 '17 at 21:30
  • 7
    I was not the moderator who issued the review ban, but it's become increasingly clear to me that not all reviewers, let alone users, are aware that plagiarism is taken so seriously on the site. And I'm starting to wonder if maybe we do need to inform posters and reviewers upfront after all (and I don't mean the "copied content" option). I speak as someone who was raised with the notion that plagiarism is one of the most disgusting and scummy things a person could do to another person without physically harming them. – BoltClock Jan 12 '17 at 7:43
26

You are, of course, free to review or not review as you choose. You chose to review and missed a plagiarized edit. So you're off of the review queues for a week. No permanent harm done. This isn't a courtroom and you're not "guilty" of anything. We just want you to take a closer look at future reviews.

There are several ways you could respond to this:

It makes me want to just skip all tag wiki edits in the future so I don't guess wrong or have to spend 5 or 10 minutes or more trying to check source or authenticity on the off-chance that I'll get my derrier in the wringer if someone happens to find out it was taken wholesale from elsewhere.

That's one. Another would be:

Maybe I should review more carefully.

Neither one is "right". We're happy to have the community review posts, but we don't want it to become a tedious and unpleasant chore. It's your choice.

  • You don't need to use draconian ways to inform (punish) people when clearly the site could take preventative measures too. This is like a stop sign that is partially occluded by trees. You could cut us (three people who were unaware of the plagiarism thing) a little slack with a warning as there is no reason to believe at all any of us would not take the hint or be repeat offenders. I'm not saying there's nothing to learn, but stern rebuke should be counterbalanced with fair warning. – clearlight Jan 11 '17 at 21:47
  • 3
    @clearlight is sad that you see it as punishment, when the action was entirely intended to be corrective. – Braiam Jan 12 '17 at 0:53
  • Well, if the classic textbook-definition from the above review is plagiarism then the "endpoint of a bidirectional inter-process communication flow across an Internet Protocol-based computer network "-part from the sockets-wiki certainly is too. Shouldn't that be removed or cited as well? – piet.t Jan 12 '17 at 7:21
  • 1
    @piet.t: Yes, and everything that's plagiarized on every part of the site should be removed as well. But that's not the focus here... – BoltClock Jan 12 '17 at 7:50
22

I mean, even in the real world there is something call "fair use" where you're allowed to copy excerpts from proprietary documents/media.

This is important to address, because it is a common confusion. "Fair use" is defense against copyright infringement. Plagiarism is distinct from copyright infringement. You could raise a successful fair use defense against a copyright infringement claim, and yet still be deemed to have plagiarized.

Simple example. Alice writes an article in the school's newspaper in which she copies three consecutive sentences out of a 200 page book written by Bob, without attribution (no quotes, no name, nothing):

  1. Copyright: if Bob were to want to raise a copyright claim, fair use would be in Alice's favor. She did not copy a whole chapter, it is unlikely that people would buy the newspaper instead of buying Bob's book, etc.

  2. Plagiarism: This is flat out plagiarism. She did not attribute the copied passage to Bob. It does not matter one bit if a court found that it was fair use.

(You also open a whole different can of worms with the term "proprietary", but I'm going to just say that if you think "fair use" is a defense if you leak a little bit of proprietary information, you're in for a nasty surprise.)

So if you see something and think "well, this cannot be plagiarism because it is allowed by fair use", well, that's just plain wrong.

  • OK, so you caught me. I'm not a lawyer. Interesting clarifications. I was just reeling because I was busted too hard not really because I wanted to get into a war about what plagiarism is. If I'd known to be on guard for it I would have been and it didn't need it to be bashed into my thick skull to introduce me to that idea. That's all I'm saying. I'm not unreasonable. I'm bugged now, and feelings bruised but I haven't lost my lucidity or common sense about the fundamental ideas here. – clearlight Jan 11 '17 at 19:16
  • "I'm not a lawyer." I suppose that's Monica Crowley's defense, too. It is a never-ending source of shock and consternation to me how many people see nothing wrong with stealing other people's work and claiming it as their own unless explicitly told otherwise. Thanks for pointing this out. – Cody Gray Jan 11 '17 at 19:53
  • I'm also not the "perpetrator" or defending "plagiarism", I'm saying I wasn't aware of the all the legal definitions of it. – clearlight Jan 11 '17 at 21:57
  • Your arguments beg the question: so what if it is plagiarized? Using the project's own description (less the marketing hyperbole) often seems to be the best choice for concise descriptions. I've never seen a project or company complain when using it since its free advertising. Stack overflow seems to be identifying a problem where one does not exist. – jww Mar 5 '17 at 10:55
  • @jww I'm not deciding here what constitutes plagiarism but reporting on what the community considers to be plagiarism. If you want to change what is and isn't considered plagiarism, that's an argument you must present to the community. – Louis Mar 5 '17 at 13:18
  • @Louis - I went through the Help Center, and nothing forbids using a project's description for the wiki tags. Like I said, some folks are trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Its classic over-engineering. Stack Overflow is full of them. – jww Mar 5 '17 at 14:04
  • @jww: so you are happy to allow copyright violations and plagiarism simply because these are not explicitly mentioned in the help centre, and by claiming companies will appreciate the free advertising. Do you think that'll stand up in court? Companies that want free advertising by having their works copied need to do so explicitly by giving permission to copy boilerplate text, for example. – Martijn Pieters Mar 5 '17 at 15:04
  • 1
  • @jww: and you won't see companies complain on Meta or to you personally, because they do so using a DMCA complaint to the Stack Overflow legal department. Just because you don't see complaints doesn't mean they don't exist. – Martijn Pieters Mar 5 '17 at 15:08
  • @MartijnPieters - I'm going to call you out. Please state a project or company that has complained Stack Overflow used the project's or company's own description in a wiki tag to describe their product. I'm aware of CipherCloud's DCMA complaint, and I know the underlying issue was their false and misleading marketing (and not a wiki tag). I'm also well aware of the issues in implementing homomorphic encryption (HME) and somewhat homomorphic encryption (SHE) schemes. – jww Mar 6 '17 at 4:04
  • 3
    @jww: I'm a volunteer moderator and not part of the legal department of Stack Overflow. How do you expect me to have any knowledge of such complaints? If you want to discuss the policy on plagiarism, post a new question, this is now way off topic for the discussion here. – Martijn Pieters Mar 6 '17 at 7:38
14

However, to lose full review queue privileges for this seems particularly unfair to me as a first time offense,

You seem to think that this is a particularly severe punishment. We're not taking your first born, you're just being given a few days without reviewing to take some time to learn more about what you did wrong and how to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

and a much grayer area.

It's not really that grey. Plagiarism is a very serious problem, and this is a very clear instance of it.

Note that 3 other reviewers also approved it, so there is clearly some confusion and need to educate users better and more reasonably in that area.

Yep. That's why you guys were banned, to help you realize what you were doing was wrong so you don't continue to make the same mistake. If you have a suggestion for a better way to inform reviewers of what they need to be doing when reviewing, by all means propose a change.

There have been no audits to teach/indicate show that this kind of thing is an issue.

Audits aren't going to bring up every situation you need to address. They're there to filter out the worst of the worst—the most egregious of the bad reviewers. Not getting banned from audits is a very low bar to pass. And note that when people start failing reviewers for things above that super low bar; getting reviews that require them to actually know how to review, what the are and aren't supposed to do, and not just recognize the most obvious and abusive spam/vandalism, they tend to complain (but we're getting a bit off track now anyway, that's another issue). Also note that generating reviews that really teach people how to review well is a very hard problem, unlike generating reviews that no sane person should ever fail.

I have seen many other tag updates like this, so thought it was the norm.

Yes, there are lots of bad reviewers out there. That's why we have mods taking the time to go out and issue bans like this. Now you know that it's not right, and you can do better in the future.

Does this suggest that reviewing tag updates requires us to google the text and try to figure out the source and wording of every tag wiki update? Should we hire a lawyer or a law firm or research agency to check IP too? I'm just saying it can be hard to know where to draw the line on that stuff when it comes down to it.

You should certainly be on the lookout for plagiarized content, yes. It's one of the most common problems with tag wikis. In this case, there were a lot of warning signs just from the edit itself: a new tag wiki with a fairly generic description. For something like that, it's probably worth doing a quick search for, yes. When it's someone fixing a typo, then obviously that's not going to be a case where you'd really need to consider plagiarism. As the rejection reason for this issue mentions, just copying a generic description like this also makes for a bad tag wiki (in addition to being plagiarism), so that should also be making you look further and question the edit.

You really should be catching the really obvious cases where low-quality tag wikis are suggested based on copying someone's description of their product. If you occasionally miss some more subtle and hard to notice instances, where there aren't red flags, or the source material isn't easily found, then that's more forgivable.

To me, this is a whole new gotcha to me and I was completely caught of guard unprepared, and I think, in this case, nailing me to the wall for it is really hitting below the belt or shooting me in the back because there was really no fair warning.

But there was. There's a whole rejection reason devoted specifically to edits like this. Basically any guidance you find on how to review tag wikis is also going to address this issue, as it's one of the main issues that tag wiki edits face. You didn't notice, but the resources were available for you to find out.

It makes me want to just skip all tag wiki edits in the future so I don't guess wrong or have to spend 5 or 10 minutes or more trying to check source or authenticity on the off-chance that I'll get my derrier in the wringer if someone happens to find out it was taken wholesale from elsewhere.

If you think that reviewing tag wikis is too time-consuming for you, then by all means. It's much better for you to just skip the reviews you don't have the time for than to review them incorrectly. Reviewing is optional; if you don't want to review these posts then don't.

I mean, even in the real world there is something call "fair use" where you're allowed to copy excerpts from proprietary documents/media.

"Fair use" would, at a bare minimum, require a citation here, which was missing. Without the proper citation, there's no shot at a fair-use argument, and even with it, I don't really see most of the points of fair use being applicable here.

I just didn't realize plagiarism was something that happens here, or that we all as individual have to police it.

And now you know. Had the moderator not banned you, you wouldn't.

It seems maybe wiki tag edits should have its own queue due to its different nature from most of the edits, which can be reviewed with more forthrightly.

Feel free to write a proposal for that, if you think it would help. (Although check for duplicates first; it sounds familiar.)

I don't think you can really say (or treat me) like what I did was egregious neglect as though I was educated, trained, forewarned, and should have known better. I mean, now I know, it is an issue, but just don't think that ways the way to bring it to my attention, since I've put a lot of effort into serving and trying to do the right thing here, and I find this very discouraging.

Well, it was egregious neglect, you failed to address one of the most common, and a fairly serious, problems with tag wiki edits, and you did have the information available to you to know that it was wrong—you simply didn't pay close enough attention to it.

Can I be let off with a warning this time?

Well, it's not my decision to make, but the fact that you're working so hard to try to claim that you didn't do anything wrong, and to blame the system, as well as others, for your mistake, on top of your insistence on how unreasonable it is for reviewers to be expected to handle these cases appropriately, rather than taking ownership of what you did wrong, and really trying to convince us that you're not going to make the same mistake in the future, I know I wouldn't support it. I'd personally only support lifting a ban for someone who was really convincing that they not only knew what they did wrong, but that they aren't going to make the same mistake again.

  • 3
    Just for completeness, you might want to mention the minimum number of reviews that one needs to get wrong before we take their first born. – Cody Gray Jan 11 '17 at 18:54
  • You make a lot of good points except that I think you've over-implied that I should have known about plagiarism since those edits are thrown in the same queue as all the other ones where people are reviewing many queues which have very different standards of judgement. I think I should have been warned once instead of banned. That's my main point. The other stuff about the finer points of plagiarism is secondary to that. – clearlight Jan 11 '17 at 18:55
  • 6
    @clearlight If your "standard of judgement" is that plagiarism is fine, then you shouldn't be reviewing. There are somethings that, when reviewing, are matters of opinion and that different reviewers will disagree on, but if you think plagiarism is fine then the ban is 100% warranted, because that's wrong, and it's not a subjective opinion. I'd also say that reading throw the rejection reasons is a pretty darn low bar to expect of a reviewer. I don't see it as unreasonable to expect that of a reviewer. – Servy Jan 11 '17 at 18:58
  • 1
    You addressed your comment to the wrong person. I didn't write this answer. I do agree, though, that throwing a fit about how unjust the ban was does tend to send the wrong message about your understanding regarding the seriousness of plagiarism… @clear – Cody Gray Jan 11 '17 at 19:04
  • 2
    @clearlight You blamed people for not assuming your innocence which is an odd thing to do when you're not claiming that you're innocent, you're asserting that this is a matter of opinion rather than a clear mistake. And no, your posts/comments isn't convincing me that you know you made a mistake. You haven't outright stated innocence, but you haven't admitted guilt either. – Servy Jan 11 '17 at 19:09
  • 2
    @clearlight well...... reading the possible reasons to reject is clearly visible under the conditions, no? I mean.... if I am to review, I believe I should at LEAST read all the reasons into why something isn't appropriate :/. In any case, considering you say stuff like "I don't think you can really say (or treat me) like what I did was egregious neglect" (I know there IS important context in the rest of the sentence that changes what it means, but I can see how it can also be read as you denying it's an issue). – Patrice Jan 11 '17 at 19:10
  • 9
    Servy "wins" this one because of logic, not power – Clive Jan 11 '17 at 19:15
  • 6
    @clearlight FYI, when someone tells you that you haven't convinced them that you recognize what you did was wrong, and that you're not going to do it again, it's a lit easier to just explicitly state that you know what you did was wrong, and to indicate that you're not going to make the same mistake in the future. When you just continue on the attack, blaming other people for the problem, you're only validating the statements that you're attempting to contradict. – Servy Jan 11 '17 at 19:25
  • 7
    This Is getting a bit weird now - too many metaphors, feels like you're quoting song lyrics - is this really as a big a deal to you as you're making out? – Clive Jan 11 '17 at 19:29
  • 1
    @Servy - you held out the carrot of being able to unban me and then indicated you would not because you presumed that I was saying I would not respond to that review task appropriately. I said I learned the lesson, would have without ban and will do better. And now you're saying that even if I'm insulted and made wrong on everything I said, that I can not rebut those points or get miffed. I think that is a subtle abuse of power and there is a tinge of dishonesty in your response. I guess I'm risking burning bridges with that level of honesty but it is how I feel. – clearlight Jan 11 '17 at 20:18
  • 3
    @clearlight If you want people to give you the benefit of the doubt and forgive your mistake, then I would suggest not insulting them dozens of times. Maybe I'm abnormal, but it just doesn't make me want to overlook someone's mistake when they're constantly insulting me for their own mistake. – Servy Jan 11 '17 at 20:22
  • 1
    Having to beg for mercy and justice and fairness is dehumanizing, or having to sugarcoat things to get fair treatment on an issue just seems wrong no matter how you cut it. – clearlight Jan 11 '17 at 20:27
  • 3
    Obvious troll is obvious? – user4639281 Jan 11 '17 at 20:34
  • 1
    But you're wrong. You wouldn't have responded appropriately, as you have proven by exploding into a ball of flame at the first instance of someone correcting your behavior while at no point accepting responsibility for your actions, accepting the criticism, or improving your future behavior. – user4639281 Jan 11 '17 at 20:38
  • 1
    @clear Ranting and raving repeatedly will not change anything. As you have been told repeatedly: If you would like to suggest a change to the system, post a feature request. The system has been explained to you repeatedly, now do something about it! – user4639281 Jan 11 '17 at 20:45
9

Draconian, meaning too severe of a punishment, does not seem to fit the scenario here.

This was the edit review:

enter image description here

It was small enough, and tag wikis in general are so prone to plagiarism, that doing even a very small bit of inspecting would have shown the problem.

Googling the first sentence brings this up:

enter image description here

You should have looked. Plagiarism is a huge problem, especially when missed in review queues. This is still a problem plaguing the new Documentation feature.

The review queues are there for oversight, and if you cannot perform the task of actually reviewing the content, then it most certainly is time to step back and reflect on what it is exactly that you are doing when using that feature.

You got a small review ban, not a ban from using the site or posting questions. That is the consequence of your actions. Own up to it. Learn from it.

  • Most people don't approach the queues knowing plagiarism is a huge problem. I didn't know to check for that. I was checking for clarity, relevance, editing and formatting errors like other suggested edits. That is a consequence of my own actions, but also an overzealous way of impugning me for missing a not-so-obvious aspect of the requirements of this particular kind of review task. My ONLY dispute here is that I think the mod went overboard in how it was brought to my attention as a first offense under the circumstances. Pretty unkind and unnecessary to a mostly good contributor – clearlight Jan 11 '17 at 21:08
  • 11
    @clearlight Most people don't approach the queues knowing plagiarism is a huge problem. Well now you know. That's the purpose of the ban - to bring it to your attention that you are doing something wrong. Take some time off and chill/reflect. – Samuel Liew Jan 11 '17 at 22:03
  • 1
    @SamuelLiew yeah, why ask someone nicely when beating them over the head will suffice? But OK, no one acknowledges I have a valid point, and we're all getting tired of discussing/hearing about it, so, whatever. I don't think you're all wrong, I don't think I'm all wrong. I think the mod went overboard, but nothing I can do about it. – clearlight Jan 11 '17 at 22:06
  • @clear no one has said that your point is invalid. Everyone has been telling you that this is the way the system currently works. If you would like to change how the system works, you need to post a feature request to that effect. You're repeatedly saying that the system does not work the way you think it should work, but you have yet to post a feature request to change that. – user4639281 Jan 12 '17 at 1:54
  • OK, fair enough. Thanks for trying to be cool about it. – clearlight Jan 12 '17 at 1:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/341327/banned-for-failing-to-recognize-check-for-plagiarism-1st-time-draconian
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-47
215655
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KO3XC3YVWWZEALL2CHUGJTUQGKFDCRDL
<urn:uuid:b5d3d824-d30d-4c61-a9b0-997bf1d25241>
2019-11-19T13:25:32Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:ND4YZOYTWHXOKGYDQA2FGVMA3VLTQXTJ
<urn:uuid:d6111eca-7303-46b3-860b-6c08e279ea64>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/341327/banned-for-failing-to-recognize-check-for-plagiarism-1st-time-draconian
response
<urn:uuid:5db66388-a202-4072-b6a1-95983375430f>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-47
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-201.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/