Talk:Goodwill (accounting)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Berrely in topic Description [lifted from Investopedia]
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Description [lifted from Investopedia]
editThe description is plagiarized from the website Investopedia. Should be fixed immediately by someone knowledgeable. I'm trying to understand the concept and I've found conflicting definitions. 100.11.107.56 (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I just took a quick boo, and I don't see much any of the language from the lead obviously replicated on the Investopedia as it now stands, but I'm going to flag the article copyvio to pass the torch to someone with more available drillintoitness. — MaxEnt 22:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Man, the copyvio template is awfully heavy for an allegation this dusty and thin, but I couldn't dissuade myself in such a fraught realm. — MaxEnt 22:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell it was never copied from Investopedia, but it is closely paraphrased from the FASB standardized definitions...which is still a copyright problem (because while their rules are used by the SEC they are not created by the SEC), but a trickier one - how to reword it without changing the meaning... VernoWhitney (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not following why we should shy away from "paraphrased FASB standardized definitions". The rules themselves may be copyrighted, but they're a standard that's widely used by many public and private companies, and state/local governments and it seems it would fall under Fair Use to describe them here.
- Running the description paragraphs through a plagiarism checker (nothing fancy: https://www.check-plagiarism.com/) returns varying results as to how plagiarized it thinks the paragraphs are, and while it's clear that some of this was pulled directly from other sources without citation putting the entire page behind a flag seems like an overreaction.
- SkonesMickLoud (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally: it doesn't look like the Instructions For Filing part of the flag was ever filed so no one at Wikipedia is looking at this as a potential copyright violation. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- After extensive checking of the FASB guidelines and other sources I have removed one or two sentences but otherwise can't find infringing content. I've removed the CP listing as a result. – Berrely • T∕C 16:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally: it doesn't look like the Instructions For Filing part of the flag was ever filed so no one at Wikipedia is looking at this as a potential copyright violation. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell it was never copied from Investopedia, but it is closely paraphrased from the FASB standardized definitions...which is still a copyright problem (because while their rules are used by the SEC they are not created by the SEC), but a trickier one - how to reword it without changing the meaning... VernoWhitney (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)