Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

From the archives

Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

This op-ed was originally published on February 25, 2015.

The views expressed in these op-eds are those of the authors only; responses and critical commentary are invited in the comments section. Editors wishing to submit their own op-ed should email the Signpost's editor.

Ebola virus disease, 15:21, 25 December 2010	Between 1976 and 1998, from 30,000 mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods sampled from outbreak regions, no Ebolavirus was detected apart from some genetic material found in six rodents (Mus setulosus and Praomys) and one shrew (Sylvisorex ollula) collected from the Central African Republic.^[1]^[2] The virus was detected in the carcasses of gorillas, chimpanzees, and duikers during outbreaks in 2001 and 2003, which later became the source of human infections. However, the high mortality from infection in these species makes them unlikely as a natural reservoir.^[1] Plants, arthropods, and birds have also been considered as possible reservoirs; however, bats are considered the most likely candidate.^[3] Bats were known to reside in the cotton factory in which the index cases for the 1976 and 1979 outbreaks were employed, and they have also been implicated in Marburg infections in 1975 and 1980.^[1] Of 24 plant species and 19 vertebrate species experimentally inoculated with Ebolavirus, only bats became infected.^[4] The absence of clinical signs in these bats is characteristic of a reservoir species. In a 2002–2003 survey of 1,030 animals which included 679 bats from Gabon and the Republic of the Congo, 13 fruit bats were found to contain Ebolavirus RNA.^[5] As of 2005, three fruit bat species (Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti, and Myonycteris torquata) have been identified as carrying the virus while remaining asymptomatic... Reston ebolavirus—unlike its African counterparts—is non-pathogenic in humans. The high mortality among monkeys and its recent emergence in swine, makes them unlikely natural reservoirs.^[6]
Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses (2011). page 364	...Between 1976 and 1998, various mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods from outbreak regions have been studied to determine the natural Fiolovirus reservoir. No Ebolavirus was detected apart from some genetic material found in six rodents (Mus setulosus and Praomys) and one shrew (sylvisorex ollula) collected from the Central African Republic (Peterson 2004). The virus was detected in the carcasses of gorillas, chimpanzees, and duikers during outbreaks in 2001 and 2003, which later became the source of human infections. However, the high mortality from infection in these species makes them unlikely as a natural reservoir. Plants, arthropods, and birds have also been considered as possible reservoirs; however, bats are now considered the most likely candidate. Bats were known to reside in the cotton factory in which the Ebola index cases for the 1976 and 1979 outbreaks were employed. They have been implicated in the Marburg infections in 1975 and 1980. Of 24 plant species and 19 vertebrate species experimentally inoculated with Ebolavirus, only bats became infected (Swanepoel 1996). The absence of clinical signs in these bats is characteristic of a reservoir species. In a 2002-2003 survey of 1,030 animales, which included 679 bats from Gabon and the DRC, 13 fruit bats were found to contain Ebolavirus RNA (Pourrut 2009). As of 2005, three fruit bat species (Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti, and Myonycteris torquata) have been identified as carrying the virus while remaining asymptomatic... Reston ebolavirus—unlike its African counterparts—is non-pathogenic in humans. The high mortality among monkeys and its recent emergence in pigs makes them unlikely natural reservoirs.

Last October, I came across the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses (2011) published by Oxford University Press (OUP). I noticed that chapter 31, "Marburg and Ebola viruses", contained a fair bit of text that was nearly identical, word for word, as that in the Wikipedia article Ebola virus disease. A page from the book may be seen on Google Books, with at least the "natural reservoirs" section being nearly verbatim and some parts of the rest of the chapter containing great similarities.

Initially, I made an assumption that someone had copied and pasted from this book into Wikipedia. However, thankfully we have the ability to go back and view every version of Wikipedia that has ever existed. I could thus determine that the content in question was added to Wikipedia back in 2006 and was subsequently edited and expanded between then and 2010, when the greatest similarities occur. From this I could conclude that it was partly written by the Wikipedians ChyranandChloe and Rhys.

Next, I wondered whether one of these individuals was the author of the OUP chapter, namely, Graham Lloyd of the Special Pathogens Reference Unit at Porton Down. I contacted the user who had made the majority of the contributions, who turned out to be a virologist in Australia who assured me that while he had contributed to Wikipedia, he had never contributed to the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses.

Finally, I looked for attribution of Wikipedia in the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses and a release of this book under an open license as required by Wikipedia, and the result was that neither of these have been performed. The hardcover version of the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses retails for $375. I discussed this issue with the legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation, who contacted the Oxford University Press. We were hoping that they could negotiate both attribution and release under an open license.

The reputation of Wikipedia in academia often seems to be that it is good enough for academics to use and even occasionally claim as their own work, but not good enough for either students or the “unwashed masses”. Thus I believed that convincing one of the world’s foremost medical publishers to both attribute and use an open license would be difficult. The legal team at the WMF, however, was optimistic. Initial emails from OUP indicated that this case would take longer than usual, as the people involved were “all over the world doing important Ebola work”. This, of course, is not the first time we have come across the academic literature copy and pasting from Wikipedia. In 2012, I discovered a medical textbook had also extensively copied from Wikipedia. (Also see the Signpost's 2012 special report on the misappropriation of Wikimedia content.)

At Wikipedia, we are happy to work with publishers. A year or so ago, I helped guide the company Boundless, which creates open access textbooks mostly based on Wikipedia content for first year university students, on how to appropriately attribute. These books were already released under a CC BY SA license. We attempted to work with the OUP in the same fashion.

On January 20, 2015, the OUP acknowledged that the content originated from Wikipedia and agreed to attribute Wikipedia, but were having difficulty with the open licensing. Following further inspection of the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses , I found more inconsistencies. For example, while parts of the text were exactly the same, the author had not consistently used the same references. The references used on the Wikipedia article supported the text, but the references in the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses that were changed did not support the text in question. The question remains as to why the references were changed. As a result of these changes, the quality of the copied content was lowered.

On February 5, 2015, I emailed the OUP offering to rewrite and update the chapter in question in collaboration with fellow Wikipedians. The next day, they replied via e-mail stating that they had already “independently decided to update the chapter and that that work [was] already in hand”. Writing a textbook chapter takes a fair length of time, likely weeks rather than a few days. Looking at the time line, it is questionable whether the OUP ever seriously intended to attribute Wikipedia. While our content passed their review processes, they claimed it was simply an “inadvertent omission of citation”. It is likely that a replacement chapter was requested immediately after the WMF legal department contacted OUP’s team.

The one good thing that has come out of all of this is that Wikipedia’s content passing a major textbook publisher review processes is some external validation of Wikipedia’s quality.

A look at the references

Both Wikipedia and the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses include "The absence of clinical signs in these bats is characteristic of a reservoir species. In a 2002–2003 survey of 1,030 animals which included 679 bats from Gabon and the Republic of the Congo, 13 fruit bats were found to contain Ebolavirus RNA". Wikipedia cites a 2005 article from Nature, which does support it. The Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses cites a 2009 article from BMC Infectious Diseases, which does not support it.
Both include "no Ebolavirus was detected apart from some genetic material found in six rodents (Mus setulosus and Praomys) and one shrew (Sylvisorex ollula) collected from the Central African Republic". Wikipedia cites it to a 2005 article from Microbes and Infection which does support it, while the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses cites [a 2004 article] from Emerging Infectious Diseases which does not support the content.
Both state "Of 24 plant species and 19 vertebrate species experimentally inoculated with Ebolavirus, only bats became infected" and both use the same reference, a 1996 article from Emerging Infectious Diseases.

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Pourrut, X.; Kumulungui, B.; Wittmann, T.; Moussavou, G.; Délicat, A.; Yaba, P.; Nkoghe, D.; Gonzalez, J. P.; Leroy, E. M. (2005). "The natural history of Ebola virus in Africa". Microbes and infection / Institut Pasteur. 7 (7–8): 1005–1014. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2005.04.006. PMID 16002313.
^ Morvan, J.; Deubel, V.; Gounon, P.; Nakouné, E.; Barrière, P.; Murri, S.; Perpète, O.; Selekon, B.; Coudrier, D.; Gautier-Hion, A.; Colyn, M.; Volehkov, V. (1999). "Identification of Ebola virus sequences present as RNA or DNA in organs of terrestrial small mammals of the Central African Republic". Microbes and Infection. 1 (14): 1193–1201. doi:10.1016/S1286-4579(99)00242-7. PMID 10580275.
^ "Fruit bats may carry Ebola virus". BBC News. 2005-12-11. Retrieved 2008-02-25.
^ Swanepoel, R. L.; Leman, P. A.; Burt, F. J.; Zachariades, N. A.; Braack, L. E.; Ksiazek, T. G.; Rollin, P. E.; Zaki, S. R.; Peters, C. J. (Oct 1996). "Experimental inoculation of plants and animals with Ebola virus". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2 (4): 321–325. doi:10.3201/eid0204.960407. ISSN 1080-6040. PMC 2639914. PMID 8969248.
^ Leroy, E. M.; Kumulungui, B.; Pourrut, X.; Rouquet, P.; Hassanin, A.; Yaba, P.; Délicat, A.; Paweska, J. T.; Gonzalez, J. P.; Swanepoel, R. (2005). "Fruit bats as reservoirs of Ebola virus". Nature. 438 (7068): 575–576. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..575L. doi:10.1038/438575a. PMID 16319873.
^ Lubroth, Juan. "Ebola-Reston Virus in Pigs: Disease situation in swine in the Philippines". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 2009-09-27.

← Previous "From the archives"

Next "From the archives" →

In this issue

29 March 2020 (all comments)

From the archives

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

It's not as uncommon as people may hope. While reading Geoffrey Barton (2017), The Tottenham Outrage and Walthamstow Tram Chase, one chapter seemed particularly familiar; it was a verbatim copy of the section of the Immigration and demographics in London section of the Siege of Sidney Street article I'd taken to FAC the day the year before. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About 10 years ago, the local Historical Society ran a series of articles in their printed newsletter on the local tiny communities. As a member of the organization, I received copies of the newsletters in the mail (quarterly, iirc). About halfway through the first article, I realized I knew this information, I recognized the writing style, I knew THE WORDS! Boy, was I surprised to find the Wikipedia article I had personally written being used word for word by the local historical society and being claimed as their own work! They ran several articles one at a time in each newsletter for a dozen or so newsletters, never with any attribution to Wikipedia. Since then I have seen the same on Facebook more times than I can count because no one cares, it is too easy to copy and paste it and claim the credit for themselves... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you ever contact the Historical Society regarding this?—Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/)} 16:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a blog post that was recommended to me by Google algorithms, turns out it had pieces of the semi-obscure article I wrote, Waterfall furniture, written word-for-word. I posted in the comments a few times, all deleted, before privately contacting the primary author, who decided to put in a link and reword at least... $ɱ$ (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Circular sourcing only continues to be a larger potential problem. The worst part is it's usually only easy to detect by the primary authors of the wikipedia pages. Aside from paying attention when content is audited, I'm not sure of any real solution that presents itself besides running plagiarism checks and seeing when the Wikitext dates from. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I really dislike about relatively reliable sources taking information from Wikipedia and not crediting it is that, if the information (e.g. the birthdate of a football player) is quite hard to find and can only be found in that RS and Wikipedia, I'm always afraid that I accidentally cite WP:CIRCULAR without knowing it. God damn, that annoys me. Cite your sources, people! —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/)} 16:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
William Burges (Architect) “by” Lambert M. Surhone (who specialises in this approach) is a complete lift of the WB article. It used to retail on Amazon for more than Mordaunt Crook’s book! KJP1 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Half a decade ago, when I took a series of Audie Murphy articles to FT, his biography from Wikipedia - word for word, punctuation, etc. - ended up in the newspaper of a smallish Texas town ... and the owner of the newspaper had put his byline on it. No credit to Wikipedia, he just claimed it as his own work. I vaguely remember posting a shocked comment on Jimbo's talk page about this. So, the last few years, I've collaborated on Hawaiian history subjects, bios, etc. In particular, those related to the Hawaiian monarchy. I have too much self respect to claim full credit on those works. Wish I could say the same for those who give interviews on a given subject, sounding a lot like Wikipedia's text. Sometimes I see new books on subjects of forgotten Hawaiian history, and am fairly certain when I read them that someone used Wikipedia as a source, without crediting it. About all I can say ... is that Wikipedia is well read. — Maile (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tangentially: The reputation of Wikipedia in academia often seems to be that it is...not good enough for either students or the "unwashed masses"...and so we continue to fail our students, our youth, and the public by failing to teach them digital literacy skills. Like other literacy skills, better to teach people how to use sources than to reject them wholesale. For example: to be suspicious of gossip rags because they often publish on crazy deadlines and have little to no editorial oversight, to go back to the original scientific paper the mainstream news piece links to evaluate their methods and how far we can actually extrapolate, to place works of literature like The Little Red Book in their proper historical context and not take them at face value. An even looser analogy: guardians of underage teens of course prohibit their children from drinking but (should) tell them to please call for a ride if you indulge. Even more tangentially (secantly?), it annoys me when someone attributes to Wikipedia but doesn't even put an access date. Misplaced anger: I can't help but see a broader pattern of people not understanding that Wikipedia is a dynamic document, so the sentence you took from it may not be there anymore when I'm reading it. Then comes the despair that people are using a source without understanding its strengths and its pitfalls. With this article, I see that ignorance doesn't discriminate between PhDs and the "unwashed masses" (and wow, doesn't the latter phrase rank of contempt). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The oddest one I came across was on a planning application to support the demolition of a disused chapel in the village of Dunton Green in Kent. The authors of the Design Statement for the houses which would replace it had thoughtfully provided an appendix listing all the nearby churches and chapels in that area which could in theory be used as an alternative. Copying and pasting the entire 120KB of List of places of worship in Sevenoaks District—images, references, wikitext and all—was an interesting way of doing it! That reminds me – I really ought to finish off that list... On a separate and more reasonable note, rarely a day goes by when one or other of the online local newspapers in my home city of Brighton and Hove does not use one of my public-domain Commons photos to illustrate a story or to provide a thumbnail image alongside the headline. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great story. Thanks for writing it up! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost needs your help putting together the next issue.

Home

About