Template:Did you know nominations/SkeptiCamp

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Copy/paste job

SkeptiCamp

(

)

... that SkeptiCamps are self-organizing grassroots skeptical conferences in which the audience members are also the presenters?

Created/expanded by Rjmail (talk). Self nom at 23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

At least a part of the content seems to be lifted from the official home page, including addressing the reader as "you". Even if we assume that copyright is not an issue (for example if one of the organizers published the text here), such promotional tone doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the 'you'. The reference to the official home page content (which is cited) seemed the best way to define what SkeptiCamp actually is, from the horses mouth, so to speak. Is this a mistake? .Rjmail (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Copying whole paragraphs without permission is copyright violation, even if the source is cited, so yes. There are many ways to express equivalent information in English. The other issue are Wikipedia content rules which state that information must be verifiable in reliable sources. Self-published material such as the official home page isn't considered reliable. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I didn't write the skepticamp website, so I'm not self-publishing anything. But I will track down which paragraphs you mean and mitigate that issue (unless you have specific lines you'd like to point me to). Rjmail (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Self-published" refers to what the article's subject published about themselves, not what you copied. To be precise, basic and uncontroversial information can be taken from self-published sources, but it still shouldn't be promotionally phrased (such as in the chapter Participation) where copy-pasting and addressing of the reader still remains. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again Yerpo. I hope I have resolved that section's issues now.Rjmail (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
All issues addressed. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Still issues with copypaste / very close paraphrase. Compare the paragraph on "Separating Atheism and Skepticism" to this source; they're nearly identical. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)