User blog:Stephan222/Plagiarizing Wikipedia, the problems



I recently wrote a post on why plagiarism is bad. This time, I'm addressing to issue of copy-pasting from w:c:wikipedia.

The Good
While it isn't desirable, it's better to have a Wikipedia article than one that is poorly spelled, a grammatical disaster, or poorly formatted. English is an odd language, and I understand many users here speak foreign languages more fluently than English. However, it is imperative that all wikipedia articles have Template:Wikipedia on them, so that folks more skilled in the language of Shakespeare can rewrite them if needed.



Disadvantages
Despite the advantages to Wikipedia articles: good spelling and grammar, reliability, and professionalism, when pasted to a wiki they present numerous problems. One of the first of these is that that all links will lead to Wikipedia and must be relinked by a user. Another is that Wikipedia uses a slightly different format, which, however, stands out. This is aside from the fact Wikipedia uses a different format, making copied articles stick out slightly.

And then there is the problem of professionalism. The Ultra Wiki should be unique, and copied articles drive readers to other sites. Copying isn't professionally accepted. It gives sites bad reputations and encourages laziness. For this reason, many wikis prohibit pasting.

While copying from Wikipedia is not considered a terrible thing here, you must insert template:Wikipedia. Others, it's good to rewrite the pages. Especially those for series entries.

Stephan222 (talk) 01:17, December 2, 2014 (UTC)