FANDOM


Mike I can't help but think you are just trying to provoke here, pretzel was mentioned on one of the deletion pages and bam here's a nice copy of memory alpha's article. That in its self is discouraged, aside from the morality of plagiarism they have a different focus than us and different referencing system, etc. But also unless you have some non-canon references to add this has no place here. -- 8of5 03:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So i provoked a note from you .. no harm there, right? I'm glad you have a voice and used it -- appropriately.
While I'm sure I could find non-canon references, i'd be fine with deleting it until that comes to pass.
And as to plagiarism, its an ugly word that is untrue in this instance -- and I think you are trying to provoke me. Memory Beta has several other articles that use content from other wikis, which is of course allowed by some, but not all, of the licenses involved.
Please, explain to me the licenses involved, and where copying is allowed and where it is not. I am eager to learn, and it would be a more appropriate use of your time to explain where the fault lies rather than taking the rather melodramatic course of accusing me of something immoral. -- Captain M.K.B. 04:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that, I've done warnings about copying so often, that was my boiled down version. Personally I don't like to copy, that is the moral issue to me, I don't know a great deal about the legality of it all but I would rather write an article myself then just take someone elses. But the actual point for all users is MA and MB are different resources which exhibit different information, what is hugely relevant to them isn't necessarily to us and our articles should reflect that and as such be written with a bias to any non-canon info. We also operate on a slightly different referencing system, and in the cases of direct copying, linked pages sometimes have different names resulting in articles getting red linked or sent to the wrong page even when we have a page for them. I believe technically we are allowed to copy from MA or wikipedia, but they use different page layouts and articles here should be written for here, reflecting what is important, here.
I don't know if that has been written into any of our official policies but it's pretty much been agreed on and enforced in the past. There are a few exceptions, some episode pages take summaries from wikipedia, but those are marked with a template stating the source of the summary and encouraging users to replace it with one written for MA, not that an episode summary would be all that different on either site, but we are a different resource, if we just copy from other places why bother to exist as a separate entity at all? -- 8of5 04:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
And as to plagiarism, its an ugly word that is untrue in this instance -- I'm curious to hear why this word-for-word copy of the M-A article should not be called plagiarism. --Seventy 05:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
... because the way that wiki licenses are set up allows for the content of the articles to be freely copied and republished for non-commercial purposes. i notice now that MB uses a GNU licnse and MA uses a CC license, so this might create an impermissable barrier, but know that copying an MA (or MB) article to another site is not immoral, as the licenses are set up to allow reuse. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.