Talk:Nobel Prize: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen (started) |
imported>Daniel Mietchen |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== How much of this is from Wikipedia? == | |||
Dr. Wormer, over at Rational W. has just stated flatly that this article is simply the WP article -- without any attribution that I can find. I've done a little checking against the WP article and it looks to me as if it is a *rewrite* of the WP article, with almost all the text either edited, reworded, rewritten, or simply eliminated. Daniel, you're the person who apparently created the CZ article out of whole cloth a couple of years ago -- what do you say in reply to Dr. Wormer? And, even given that a lot of it has been rewritten, is there still enough direct WP material there that we would have the disclaimer at the bottom of the page? Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I don't know why the WP box was not ticked - it definitely should have been, and so I just did a jog edit to that effect. I wouldn't call the changes a rewrite - even with the edits Gareth recently made, the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Nobel_Prize&diff=100761971&oldid=100395383 difference to the imported version] (discounting the export of parts to the subpages) is small, and the categorization as External probably justified. So Paul is right, as in most cases. But I think External Articles should be [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User:Daniel_Mietchen/PR-2010-013&oldid=100760298#Revised_phrasing_.285.29 phased out] anyway, and I would welcome suggestions in this regard. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 01:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 19:37, 18 March 2011
How much of this is from Wikipedia?
Dr. Wormer, over at Rational W. has just stated flatly that this article is simply the WP article -- without any attribution that I can find. I've done a little checking against the WP article and it looks to me as if it is a *rewrite* of the WP article, with almost all the text either edited, reworded, rewritten, or simply eliminated. Daniel, you're the person who apparently created the CZ article out of whole cloth a couple of years ago -- what do you say in reply to Dr. Wormer? And, even given that a lot of it has been rewritten, is there still enough direct WP material there that we would have the disclaimer at the bottom of the page? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why the WP box was not ticked - it definitely should have been, and so I just did a jog edit to that effect. I wouldn't call the changes a rewrite - even with the edits Gareth recently made, the difference to the imported version (discounting the export of parts to the subpages) is small, and the categorization as External probably justified. So Paul is right, as in most cases. But I think External Articles should be phased out anyway, and I would welcome suggestions in this regard. --Daniel Mietchen 01:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Categories:
- Article with Definition
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Physics Developing Articles
- Physics Nonstub Articles
- Physics Internal Articles
- Chemistry Developing Articles
- Chemistry Nonstub Articles
- Chemistry Internal Articles
- Health Sciences Developing Articles
- Health Sciences Nonstub Articles
- Health Sciences Internal Articles