Imprecations

[RedMage]

Do you ever feel worried that all your favorite Psalms are the imprecatory ones? You know, the ones where David or whoever says: "See that guy over there, God? GET HIM!!!"

For several months I've been editing anime-related pages (and a few non-anime ones) on Wikipedia. I like to think I've made some decent contributions in my small way. But after today I'm seriously questioning whether I'll ever do anything on Wikipedia again.

Two days ago I spent a couple hours out of my day writing a summary of the first episode of The Big O for Wikipedia. This morning I discovered that some guy is claiming I plagiarized it from a summary of the same episode on his site. This is, of course, completely untrue. I had never even looked at his episode summary. I didn't know it even existed.

For your edification, here's my summary in the Wikipedia page history, and here's the one on his site.

He claims parts of my summary were "lifted verbatim" from his. As they are both detailed, scene-by-scene recaps of the same episode of the same series, there are of course similarities in content, but as far as I can see there's not a single sentence the same aside from diologue quotes. Apparently this guy thinks he's the only one capable of writing a detailed, coherent summary of the episode and anyone else who manages it must have ripped him off.

But my protests were to no avail. A wikipedia staff member apparently decided this guy was right. He doubtless has no knowledge whatsoever of the material in question and, after glancing at the two pages for thirty seconds tops, saw that they contained similar information and made up his mind.

I was still fighting it, but I've decided it's not worth it. I told his individual that he wins, he can have the whole Big O section as his personal feifdom for all I care. I know I didn't copy anything from his site, my conscience is clear, and I gain nothing from a futile effort to convince him otherwise.

(Note, just for the record, that this guy's first edit is the 4th of August and his contribution list is a fraction the length of mine - and mine would be longer except I used to use a different account.)

This has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I don't feel like ever contributing to Wikipedia again. It's not worth putting time and effort into something only to have it wiped out in the blink of an eye by self-centered bullies and get called a liar and a thief and just have to take it.

A lot of people run Wikipedia down because they say the information isn't accurate because anyone can contribute. I've never taken such a pessemistic view. I've always felt Wikipedia was a noble, enjoyable endeavor and a good resource for specialized information, if a bit idealistic and unavoidably flawed. In my experience, the pages about important stuff are more likely to be correct, because more people look at them and will notice and errors or intentional fabrications and they're more likely to require specialized knowledge, cutting down the pool of potential contributors to those who actually know what they're talking about. It's in the back alleys of Wikipedia, pages about pop culture and entertainment and other trivial stuff, that Wikipedia is at its worst. There you find the poorest pages (and some very good ones, to be sure), the worst behavior from users, and the most clueless action from staff.

In short, I'm just a little more cynical and jaded today than I was yesterday. I know it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, which is why I decided to walk away from the situation, but it irks me to have to take this kind of crap (if you'll pardon my language). I ended up reading imprecatory Psalms to help calm down. I know my problems don't compare to David's, and I don't want God to leave this guy's wife a widow and his children beggars, etc. etc., but it's nice to know even David felt like the whole world was out to get him sometimes.

OK, I'm done. Thanks for listening.

[Radical Dreamer]

Yeah, that's pretty rediculous. You should just make your own site for reviews and the like, then no one can tell you what you can and cannot write. XD Still, it's good that you walked away from the situation; that was definitely the more mature thing to do.

[Anna Mae]

That would be most frustrating. I am a fan of Wikipedia myself. Try not to let this one experience ruin all of Wikipedia for you, though. I will be praying for you.

[Yeshua-Knight]

well, you could always do what my mom calls saying "sick 'em Jesus" in which you don't actually pray against the person, but instead you pray that the "Hound of Heaven", as william blake put it, to chase after that person so that one day they might come to have a relationship with God through Christ

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I think in the end, you won. If I were that guy, I'd feel like a total idiot. I don't really know why... but I think I would.

Anyway, yeah it kind of isnt fair >_>

[mitsuki lover]

I wonder if they really bothered with comparing the two entries side by side.Yes,there are superficial similarities in both reviews,which as you said can't be helped because you were reviewing the same episode/show.However the way you wrote yours was much different from the style he used to write his.So stylistically speaking you come out on the upper hand.
It would appear that TPTB at Wikiepedia did not bother to really review either what you had written or what the other person had written at his site.If they had then they might have seen a difference.For example you mention when Dorothy is first seen that she has red hair,he did not mention Dorothy's hair color in his review.
Contrawise when Beck is introduced he calls him JASON BECK,whereas in your review you only call him BECK.It is differences like that that make a case of
plagarization a bit difficult IMO to sustain as the style and wording are totally different.Also note that in his review he divides it into sections.

[termyt]

I'm no plagiarism expert, and, quite frankly, I doubt the guy who reviewed the claim was, either. If I had to guess, it would be that the site at Wikipedia would rather remove a contentious article than face the possibility of a plagiarized article. That's neither fair nor just, but it is expedient and expediency usually wins out.

It’s never fun to be on the muddy end of the stick, and I am truly sorry you have found yourself there, but I hope that doesn’t spoil you on Wikipedia. Ask yourself this question: “Why do I contribute to Wikipedia?â€

[Uriah]

Yep... people are at times.. stupid.

In such a situation all you can do is let God deal with it or contact my moral kneecapping company.. (Maybe not the most Christlike alternative )

[RedMage]

[quote="termyt"]
It’s never fun to be on the muddy end of the stick, and I am truly sorry you have found yourself there, but I hope that doesn’t spoil you on Wikipedia. Ask yourself this question: “Why do I contribute to Wikipedia?â€

[mitsuki lover]

You are welcome.