Article: John Smith was born on 2 February 1949 in Hartford, connecticut. He studied medicine at State University, and earned. In this example, the wording of the article is very close to that of both sources. However, the article merely presents standard facts for a topic like this in standard sequence. The article does not copy any creative words or phrases, similes or metaphors, and makes an effort at paraphrasing in the second sentence. Just two short sentences are close to the sources. For these reasons the close paraphrasing should be acceptable. Note, however, that closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression.
Ward off Plagiarism: How
Short catchphrases, slogans or mottos may also be reproduced where relevant to the discussion. It is acceptable to use a technical term such as "The war of the Spanish Succession" or "Relational Database management System (rdbms when the term is almost always used by sources that discuss the subject, and when such sources rarely use any other term. In this case, the technical term is considered to be "merged" with the idea expressed. There is no reasonable alternative way of expressing the idea, and since ideas are not subject to copyright the term is also not protected. However, if different sources use different terms for the concept, it may be best for the article to use a different term from the source or to include the term in a sourced". An plan example of closely paraphrased simple statements of fact is given by a biography that relies on two sources for the basic outline. The sources and the article start with: source1: John Smith was born in Hartford, connecticut on February 2nd 1949. He attended State University, obtaining. Source2: John Smith was born on 2 February 1949 in Hartford. He graduated with a medical degree from State University in 1973.
To avoid this risk, wikipedia keeps this—like other non-free content—minimal. quot;tion from non-free sources may resume be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source. Examples may include statements made by a person discussed in the article, brief excerpts from a poem, song or book described in the article, or significant opinions about the subject of the article. quot;tion should not, however, be treated as an alternative to extracting facts and presenting them in plain language. Thus: Right: Churchill said, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."1 Right: The new York times reviewer found the film "pretentious and boring".2 Wrong: According to bulgarian Butterflies, "the patient observer may be fortunate enough to glimpse this rare moth flitting. This may be the case when there is no reasonable way to avoid using technical terms, and may also be the case with simple statements of fact. Names or titles of people, organizations, books, films and so on may be given in full there is no creative expression in a name or title, which is often the only way to identify the subject.
Government, or ilahi is available under a license compatible with the cc-by-sa license (a partial table of license compatibility can be found at the copyright faq then the source may be closely paraphrased if the source is appropriately attributed. Attribution in such instances may include in-text attribution that makes clear whose words or ideas are being used (e.g. "John Smith wrote that. or may include more general attribution that indicates the material originates from a free source, either as part of an inline citation or as a general notice in the article's "References" section (for further information on how to attribute free sources, see wikipedia:PlagiarismCopying material from. quot;tion of non-free text edit limited"tion from non-free copyrighted sources is allowed, as discussed in wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline. quot;tions should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author (see wp:When to cite ). With direct"tion, editors should clearly distinguish the"d material from the original text of the article following the guidelines for"tions. Extensive use of"tion from non-free sources is generally not acceptable. Even if content is attributed, it can still create copyright problems if the taking is too substantial.
There are a few specific situations when close paraphrasing is permitted. If information is gathered from the public domain or is free use content, close paraphrasing may be acceptable. In some instances it is helpful to capture the words as written, in which case the guidelines for"tions apply. Lastly, there may be some instances where it's difficult to paraphrase because of the nature of the content; in such cases, there are a couple of tips below about how to limit the degree of close paraphrasing to avoid issues. When using a close paraphrase legitimately, citing a source is in most cases required and highly recommended. 6 Public domain or compatibly-licensed content edit In some limited cases, close paraphrasing may be an acceptable way of writing an article. For example, many wikipedia articles are (or were) based on text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia britannica (see wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia britannica ). If the source is in the public domain, such as work of the.
What is a, paraphrase?
It does not indicate infringement, for instance, where the doctrine of fair use permits the use of the material. 4 wikipedia deliberately adopts a narrower limitation and exception from copyright than fair use. Our policy and guideline are set out at wikipedia:Non-free content. Substantial similarity is also immaterial when strong evidence exists that the content was created independently. 5 An author may think they are being original when they write "Charles de gaulle was a towering statesman not realizing that many other authors have independently come up with these identical words. What looks like copying or close paraphrasing may thus be accidental. These similarities are more likely to exist where content is less creative and more formulaic.
Independent creation is less likely when there is evidence that the source best was consulted or close following is extensive. Wikipedia's guidelines edit even when content is verifiably public domain or released under a compatible free license, close paraphrasing may be at odds with wikipedia's guideline related to plagiarism (see wikipedia:Plagiarism ). While in this context, too, close paraphrasing of a single sentence is not as much of a concern, if a contributor closely paraphrases public domain or freely licensed content, he or she should explicitly acknowledge that content is closely paraphrased. (see below.) Another potential problem arises when a contributor copies or closely paraphrases a biased source either purposefully or without writing understanding the bias. This can make the article appear to directly espouse the bias of the source, which violates our neutral point of view policy. When is close paraphrasing permitted? Edit further information: wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright Can i add something to wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?
It is sometimes relevant for an article to include a short"tion such as a significant statement made by the subject of the article or a notable comment about the subject. In these cases a verbatim"tion should be given rather than a paraphrase. quot;tions should be used very sparingly vague and should be clearly identified and formatted as defined in mos". Substantial similarity edit The us copyright Office states that, "Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions. The copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words. To be protected by copyright, a work must contain a certain minimum amount of authorship.
Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements." 3 However, if a source creatively combines, selects or arranges names, titles, short phrases or expressions, following it too closely may infringe on its copyright. Paraphrasing rises to the level of copyright infringement when there is substantial similarity between an article and a copyrighted source. This may exist when the creative expression in an important passage of the source has been closely paraphrased, even if it is a small portion of the source, or when paraphrasing is looser but covers a larger part of the source or covers "the heart". A close paraphrase of one sentence from a book may be of low concern, while a close paraphrase of one paragraph of a two-paragraph article might be considered a serious violation. Editors must therefore take particular care when writing an article, or a section of an article, that has much the same scope as a single source. The editor must be especially careful in these cases to extract the facts alone and present the facts in plain language, without carrying forward anything that could be considered "creative expression". Under us copyright law, however, substantial similarity does not always indicate infringement.
How to, paraphrase a paragraph: 8 Steps (with Pictures
1 2 Moral rights edit main page: wikipedia:Moral rights wikipedia does not have an official policy regarding moral rights of authors. The " moral rights " of an author are independent of copyright ownership. They include the author's right to control first donation publication of a work; the author's right to be attributed or to remain anonymous; the author's right for the work to be published without distortion or mutilation. As with copyright, moral rights apply to creative expression but not to mere facts. Respecting moral rights can help ensure that wikipedia content can be reused as widely as possible. In accordance with verifiability policy, wikipedia editors should not use unpublished work (note: unpublished work in public collections may be suitable). With published work, editors should attribute each source to the author where short the publication names the author, and attribute the source to the publication if it does not name the author.
Translation edit Translation from a internet foreign language is a form of paraphrase, since all the words or phrases have been replaced with equivalent English-language words or phrases. This may or may not be acceptable, depending on whether any creative expression anything other than simple statements of fact has been taken from the foreign language source. For example, consider two translations from the turkish language: "Istanbul is a large city" "The sun looms through the haze like a red omen" The first is a simple statement of fact and should be acceptable. The second carries over the figurative expressions "looms through" and "like a red omen so presumably is not acceptable despite using completely different words from the original. But even if you only carry across statements of fact, the more you translate and the more closely you translate, the more likely you are to create a copyright problem. Selection and arrangement edit Although facts are not subject to copyright, a selection or arrangement of facts may be considered creative and therefore protected. For example, an alphabetical list of states in the us giving their name, size and population cannot be copyrighted. However, a shorter list of states giving the name, size and population as before, but ranked as the "top most livable states" would be subject to copyright. The selection and ranking is creative.
an undulating throat; like an unsuccessful literary man. If this somewhat dubious source was used for the article on llamas and was still protected by copyright, it would be acceptable to say that the llama is an animal with a shaggy coat, and perhaps that it has a long neck. But use of the phrases "indolent expression" and "undulating throat" might violate copyright. The original choice of words is part of Belloc's creative expression. Going further, the simile "like an unsuccessful literary man" is also creative, and is also protected. A clumsy paraphrase like "resembling a failed writer" might violate copyright even though the words are entirely different. More than the facts have been copied. It is of course also necessary that other requirements for copyright violation also exist, such as being a "substantial" taking.
If the story source material bears a free copyright license that is compatible with wikipedia's licenses, copying or closely paraphrasing it is not a copyright violation so long as the source is attributed somewhere in the article, usually at the end. The best way to prevent close paraphrasing is to understand clearly when it is a problem, how to avoid it, and how to address it when it appears. Contents, concepts edit, copying isn't the only way to violate copyright or plagiarize. Close paraphrasing can be a problem, too. There are legal, ethical, and organizational standard considerations regarding the use of close paraphrasing. Copyright law edit, wikipedia's primary concern is with the legal constraints imposed by copyright law. Close paraphrasing of the creative expression in a non-free copyrighted source is likely to be an infringement of the copyright of the source. In many countries close paraphrasing may be also seen as mutilation or distortion of an author's work, infringing on their moral rights. Creative expression edit, facts and ideas cannot be protected by copyright, but creative expression is protected.
Paraphrase, effectively, paraphrase, example
Close paraphrasing is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing online policy. Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is"ng, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text for example, by adding "John Smith wrote. together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph. Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate wikipedia's copyright policy, which forbids wikipedia contributors from copying material directly from other sources. Public domain material must likewise be attributed to avoid plagiarism.