Qiuhanzhang827

Welcome!

Hello, Qiuhanzhang827, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Feminism

Hi, I saw that you posted to feminism and the content was removed. I wanted to explain a little about the page and about why the content may have been removed. Firstly, the feminism page is both a Good Article on Wikipedia (marking it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia) and an article held under sanctions. Sanctions are basically put on an article when it's a controversial and frequently edited and debated topic on Wikipedia. They are also frequently watched and as this is a Good Article, this increases the amount of page watchers. What this means for editors is essentially that anything they add to the article must be as neutrally written as possible and have the strongest possible sources. If content is removed, it's important to discuss this at the article's talk page if you wish to re-add it.

Now as far as the content goes, it looks like the reason it was removed was because the section you added was about a single study. Studies are often problematic as sources because they're seen as primary sources for any of the research and claims that they put forth. As such, an independent, secondary source is needed to validate the study's findings, help provide context, and also show where the study is notable enough to highlight in the article. With validation, the publication that is printing the study doesn't actually verify the study itself as they only look to make sure that there are no glaring errors that would immediately invalidate the study. Studies are also fairly limited in scope out of necessity - they can't survey every person (or in this case read every news article), so they have to take a limited selection of participants. This means that the study's findings are really only accurate for that specific group of people or news articles. The researcher can say that the study is representative of a larger group, but a secondary source is needed to really help back that up. This secondary source can not only help validate the claims but also give the much needed context by way of commentary on the topic. As far as notability goes, the reason this is needed is because we need to show where the study has been covered by others since this will help show why this study should be chosen to highlight in the article, especially over other, similar studies, some of which may have an opposing viewpoint.

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hip-hop feminism

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I removed your addition to the Hip-hop feminism. For copyright reasons, the use of non-free content in Wikipedia should be kept at a minimum, and used only as part of a commentary on the topic. Since you used a lengthy quote (ideally it should be less than a sentence) and you didn't include commentary on it in any way beyond "wrote in her book", this isn't an appropriate use of copyright material on Wikipedia.

You should paraphrase what the authors had to say whenever possible. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Ian! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright/plagiarism

Hello, I received a notification that you had posted material that closely paraphrased or took material verbatim from content that had previously been published elsewhere to your article. This is seen as a copyright issue and plagiarism, even if you were to include the original source as a citation. Always be careful when writing article content - a good way to avoid doing this is to take notes while reading and write your article from those notes.

Unless the material is explicitly marked as falling into the public domain or was released under a compatible Creative Commons license, it should be assumed that the content is copyrighted in a way that would prohibit it from being used verbatim elsewhere. It's always best to write things in your own words, as this can help prevent issues like this from arising. I would like for you to review the module on plagiarism and copyright, thanks. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm tagging your professor SheridanFord on this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• I found that you added more plagiarism to the Nicki Minaj article. DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT add content taken from other sources. I need to stress that this is not a good idea as it is easily detected and if you continue doing this after you're warned, it can lead to you getting blocked from editing Wikipedia. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Response

Hi! You wrote on my talk page that you were confused about the edits being seen as a copyright and plagiarism issue. This is actually a really valid question to ask, so I can definitely give you more information!

Essentially what happened here is that you copied content from another source, in this case abstracts and material that you took from a database. While the school has permission to access the material via a database, these permissions don't extend to Wikipedia. This poses an issue with both copyright and plagiarism for the following reasons:

Plagiarism

When adding the content you didn't attribute the material to the person who wrote the content and in some cases, didn't even add the source itself as a citation. As a result this came across as you presenting the material as your own work, even though this was unintentional. Wikipedia adds a bit of an extra layer to this in that when we add content to Wikipedia it's supposed to be written in our own words or otherwise clearly attributed to the person or organization that wrote the original work. As such, when we publish we are claiming the work as our own.

Copyright

This is where it gets a bit more tricky, as copyright and plagiarism are not the same thing. Plagiarism is when we represent something as our own, however copyright refers to what publishing license the material was released under. Most content is published under a very restrictive license that essentially doesn't allow it to be published, adapted, or used without the permission of the owner. Some content, such as anything released by the US Federal Government, is in the public domain and can be freely used, published, and adapted. Wikipedia is that Wikipedia uses a very specific license that allows people to use, adapt, and publish the work as long as they post somewhere that they took the content from Wikipedia and publish it under the same copyright license. Basically, the issue here is that we can only post content to Wikipedia if it's held under a similar or less restrictive copyright. If this sounds complicated, well... it is. It may be easier to explain this with an example:

J.K. Rowling owns the copyrights to the Harry Potter series. She wants to protect her ability to profit off of the series and keep others from adapting the story in ways she doesn't like. As such, the Harry Potter series is copyrighted under the most restrictive copyright. With this copyright she can prevent others from trying to sell or distribute illegal copies of her books (ie, printing them up themselves and selling them), as well as keep people from creating derivative works that she wouldn't like, such as someone creating an unauthorized stage musical of the first book or re-writing the books to cast Harry Potter as racist. As such, Wikipedia editors cannot copy large portions of the book onto Wikipedia, as this will be considered a violation of her copyright since a person could take any given Wikipedia article and publish it for profit - or change it up entirely. It's very common for other sites to copy Wikipedia articles wholesale and make very small edits, then put it on their website to promote themselves or something else.

Now the catch here is that Rowling may not always choose to go after everyone and everything. So while Harry Potter fanfiction (original stories created by fans of the series) is technically against copyright law since they're using copyrighted characters, she may choose to "ignore" them unless they pose a major issue such as them trying to publish their fanfiction professionally or for profit. By this extension the author of a journal article may choose to overlook people distributing copies of their work since they want the information to be freely accessible, as long as that person isn't trying to adapt the work or sell it without their permission. These are both things that Wikipedia allows, so the issue here is that the copyrights aren't compatible.

The bottom line of this is that you should re-write anything that is taken from another source, even if it's a school database. If any of this still sounds unclear, definitely let me know and I'll try to explain a bit more. Copyright law and plagiarism can both be kind of tricky to navigate. I know that your professor will also help explain things as well. This video also helps explain basic copyright laws a little as well, although not in relation to Wikipedia. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa, anything you'd care to add here in the nature of advice to Qiuhan, who is a Wiki Education student new to editing for Wikipedia, who has gotten into a bit of trouble on copy-paste issues, and who is having trouble with the explanations about copyright already given to them by Shalor just above? Mathglot (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Really well said, and briefly, too. Stealing this, for my snippet library. Mathglot (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Qiuhan, Purdue seems to have changed their links; you can try these instead:

• Preventing plagiarism
• Contextualizing plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism

Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Matglot, here's another good one: Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Translated pages

Hi! I took a look at the translated pages and they look great so far! One thing I do want to note is that you can do translate word for word when it comes to Wikipedia to Wikipedia translations, as long as it's noted that it was translated from the English page. This definitely wouldn't be considered plagiarism or a copyright issue because of the copyright license Wikipedia has. To be honest, I was surprised that there wasn't already an article on Lil' Kim in Chinese, so this really emphasizes the importance of people translating English articles into other languages like you have - this was definitely well done! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you！！I will keep doing it then! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiuhanzhang827 (talk • contribs) 17:28, April 25, 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your translations, until you understand what the local rules of each Wikipedia are. I notice that at this edit at zh:Lil' Kim, for example, you have removed Chinese text and replaced it with English; for example, in the Infobox. Please don't do that; the principal language of zh-wiki is Chinese, not English.

Also, every edit which involves copied or translated text from another article on Wikipedia, must have an attribution statement in the Edit summary belonging to that edit. You can read more about this at WP:CWW, but an attribution for a translation from Chinese into English, might read: Content in this edit was translated from [[:zh:NAME OF CHINESE ARTICLE]]; please see that article's history for full attribution. When you translate into Chinese, you'll need a similar attribution statement, preferably in Chinese, listing and linking the name of the English (or other language) article it was translated from. If you make ten different edits adding some new translated text each time, then you need ten attribution statements. This is a legal requirement, and not a matter of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Pinging Shalor. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for noticing that Mathglot! We have a training module for doing translations here - I don't know if I passed that along or not. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the content in infobox is automatically translated by the machine which I don't know why.Many grammars are wrong, and some words cannot be translated, such as names, so that’s why some contents in info box are English.Qiuhanzhang827 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC) I will read through the rules and be more careful next time, thanks you guys!Qiuhanzhang827 (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Qiuhan, you're right that the content translation tool translates some things it is not able to handle well, such as the Infobox items. However, replacing the poor, automatic Chinese translations with English is not the best approach, imho. Either blank out the poorly translated items if you don't know the Chinese equivalent or look them up. Alternatively, you could place the correct English value in the Infobox for minor terms whose equivalents are difficult to find (Alpine, New Jersey) so the next person can look them up. However, all of the following words which you added to the Infobox in English have Chinese equivalents: New York City (纽约), New York State (纽约州), Hip-hop music (嘻哈音樂), Jones (琼斯), New Jersey (新泽西州), rapper (饒舌, = rapping), songwriter (詞曲作家), actress (女演员 = actor), model (模特兒). It only took me a couple of minutes to locate these, relying only on Wikipedia without recourse to a translator or dictionary. Secondly, when entering the Infobox name= param, in the Chinese Infobox, please use the Chinese name for that field; the English original name (Lil' Kim) goes in the native_name= field, which is not there yet, so you'll have to add it (along with native_name_lang=. (For articles whose native name is not English, you should also add english_name= to the Infobox; for example, translating the article Munich into Chinese, the Infobox should include native_name=München and english_name=Munich, although it appears that many Chinese Infoboxes that should have the latter field, lack it.) You can find a complete list of parameters available for the Chinese Infobox template here. Adding Shalor. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok! Got it! I will try my best to learn more about translating on Wiki, thanks for your help!Qiuhanzhang827 (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Related discussions at: User talk:Mathglot#About my translating, and User talk: Diannaa#Copyright responsibility on other lang wikipedias?. Mathglot (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk page usage

Qiuhan, please read up on proper Talk page protocol at WP:THREAD. Please pay particular attention to the part on indentation using colons, and always sign your post with four tildes. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for persisting with your edits and for translating to Chinese a woman rapper's article! Xie Xie sheridanford (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)