#1 Posted by jakob187 (21642 posts) -
#2 Posted by DarthOrange (3851 posts) -

How do you know Wikipedia didn't take it from us?

#3 Posted by DeF (4799 posts) -

@darthorange: probably because the top scoring user looks suspicious in that the amount of points he got on that page looks like what you get from writing the entire thing. and he only made significant contributions to two other pages. so I think it looks fishy. not clear cut but, well, suspicious. and that's basically the only thing the user ever did here aside from some other minor wiki things.

#4 Posted by ThunderSlash (1547 posts) -

Rise of Wiki Points

#5 Edited by Brackynews (4045 posts) -

It looks like this has still not been addressed. Or if it has this should be locked.

I agree it looks suspicious given the point total putting someone over the free-edit limit. It's also important to mention that a bit more detective work is necessary in these cases, because it's not plagiarism if the same person posts their own writing on multiple sites. I'm not suggesting that's what happened here, but it is in fact possible, and I have done it myself months later, whether wikis or reviews, etc.

But also consider the case of a developer with a Giant Bomb account (of which there are many), who also has information to add to WIkipedia and no marketing team behind them. They won't be doing a whole lot else with their account, and they won't put in flashing lights that they are a developer, but it would reveal some very specific similarities in the writing if it was discovered.

#6 Posted by jakob187 (21642 posts) -

"The other buildings include the standard unit factories and defensive structures, as well as unique buildings for each race. The following is a list of the five different districts:"

...and then it goes on to not list any of the five different districts, which are listed as bullet points on the Wikipedia page. Everything else seems to be in the same exact order and same exact formatting.

Also, if you view the editing history of the Wikipedia page, it has been through multiple edits for many years, but all of these are minor edits. None of them are straight up filling the page with all of the information. In particular, the portions about the different civilizations was added to the page in 2007, which is before Giant Bomb even started. Any work that has been done over the last six years on it has been done by multiple different users.

This is definitely a plagiarized page.

#7 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

Just PM it to the mods, yo!

#8 Edited by MB (11968 posts) -
Moderator
#9 Posted by Marino (4597 posts) -

@brackynews: @def: @jakob187: I'll look into it. In the future, please contact us directly about stuff like this. Thanks.

Staff
#10 Edited by GaspoweR (2793 posts) -

Also I think you can log in to the wiki page and check for the revision edits there if you have an account. You can check when that edit was made then compare it to when this page or edit was made here in GB.

#11 Edited by Brackynews (4045 posts) -

@gaspower: All part of the detective work for sure. But not something we users have been able to do on GB until very recently. Let the mods do their job. :)

#12 Posted by jakob187 (21642 posts) -

@marino: Didn't know I was supposed to message mods directly about stuff like this. In the past, we just posted it here in the forums. = /

#13 Edited by sodacat (214 posts) -

It's also important to mention that a bit more detective work is necessary in these cases, because it's not plagiarism if the same person posts their own writing on multiple sites.

Actually it is, because after posting anything it becomes the property of Giantbomb and can not be reposted elsewhere. No one ever reads the TOU~

#14 Posted by Brackynews (4045 posts) -

@sodacat: From the TOU.

We respect your ownership of User Submissions. If you owned a User Submission before providing it to us, you will continue owning it after providing it to us, subject to any rights granted in the Terms and any access granted to others.

Admittedly the CBSi policies are a bit heavier on the legalese than WM was, but the crux of my point is still valid, especially if the user's work originally appeared elsewhere.

If you're concerned about the paragraph immediately preceding this one, that is pure boilerplate for being able to post on a public wiki.