Talk:American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 March 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Copying issues
editThis article contains material taken near-verbatim from this source and possibly others under a license incompatible with Wikipedia. It also contains material copied from another Wikipedia article without proper attribution, per WP:CWW. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at this source, there is legitimate reason for complaint:
- "Ruling that the government’s global telephone data-gathering system is needed to thwart potential terrorist attacks, and that it can only work if everyone’s calls are swept in, a federal judge in New York City ruled Friday that Congress legally set up the program and that it does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights. vs. Judge Pauley said that the U.S. government's global telephone data-gathering system is needed to thwart potential terrorist attacks, and that it can only work if everyone's calls are swept in.
- The judge also concluded that the telephone data being swept up by NSA did not belong to telephone users, but to the telephone companies. vs. He found that there was no violation of a constitutional right to privacy in the NSA program, and concluded that the telephone data being swept up by NSA did not belong to telephone users, but to the telephone companies.
- And further he ruled that, when NSA obtains such data from the telephone companies, and then probes into it to find links between callers and potential terrorists, this further use of the data was not a search under the Fourth Amendment. vs. He ruled that, when NSA obtains such data from the telephone companies, and then probes into it to find links between callers and potential terrorists, this further use of the data was not even a search under the Fourth Amendment.
The small extent of the copying should be within the realm of Fair Use (a belief evidenced by my willingness to quote this text above) but definitely it fails Wikipedia policy - though I've not received any suggestion to crack down in QPQ reviewing DYKs when noticing paraphrasing not all that much less.[1] It has been my perception that Wikipedia is more concerned with copyright per se than imposing a teacher's strict interpretation of plagiarism. And most of the rest of the text is direct quotes; I tried four of the biggest sections and didn't get a direct match. My hope is that some quick and limited editing can clear this pall from the article. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
In furtherance of this, I have just redone the entire article from end to end to be sure, and so have removed the paraphrasing tag. [2] Wnt (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
edit
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject Cyberlaw and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2014 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)