Talk:Ragworm

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles

Animals

Ragworm is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

The edit by 138.162.0.42 on 25 July adding the second paragraph describing the physical characteristics of the ragworm plagiarizes (Wikipedia:Plagiarism) an article in The Economist[1]. Is it sufficient to attribute the original source?

The last paragraph (also made by 138.162.0.42) is also from the same article in The Economist.

It didn't look like the content was copied exactly, just the ideas were used. I think all it needs is a citation. The link provided should work just fine. Glennfcowan (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

those two paragraphs are taken verbatim from the cited Economist article. blatant plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.31 (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show what you mean? I went to the article and couldn't find those particular paragraphs. It is obvious that the article was used to add the content, but it is certainly not verbatim. I have added a citation, and if anyone wants to rewrite those sections, that is fine. --Glennfcowan (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph of the article from The Economist: "They crawl around beaches and mudflats using tiny structures along the sides of their bodies that work like legs, but are in fact gills. At the front of their bulbous blue heads they have curved fangs that act as jaws. They use these to capture and tear apart their crustacean prey." Then, compare the sixth paragraph from The Economist article with that last paragraph by 138.162.0.42. Changing a few words or rearranging the sentence structure does not make the contribution original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.245.11 (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the sections to removed many of the similarities with the Economist article. I still didn't see whole sections taken verbatim. I completely agree that most was copied and changed slightly, I just disagree with the assertion that it was verbatim.

By the way, in all the time we have discussed this matter, either of us could have fixed the problem three times over. I encourage you to get a wikipedia account since IP contributions are considered and scrutinized more carefully. Also, people can contact you on your talk page instead of here. Getting an account is easy, and you can still be anonymous. (just pick an esoteric username!) The community here can use people willing to contribute to and challenge all types of articles. Even those about obscure worms! --Glennfcowan (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Nobody here is in the business of ripping off the Economist. Most contributors just want to get as much information into the article as they can, and there is not a lot out there on ragworms I bet.[reply]