Forum:Attribution and plagiarism policy

Recently, I have been in contact with a Nukapedia admin (Skire) and we have been discussing the creation of a mutual policy between The Vault and Nukapedia that handles the issue of plagiarism and attributing non-original content. Skire has passed three points that bureaucrat Agentc is proposing, verbatim:
 * 1) Nukapedia adopts the Vault attribution policy, so we have a common standard and common understanding of what is needed to use each others work (although the need for a banner linking to the other will likely ensure this does not happen regularly
 * 2) Nukapedia and the vault agree to a common enforcement policy.  For users who should know better, this amounts to zero tollerance.  For new/unranked users, they get one single warning.  Bans will not be issued for good faith attempts to attribute, but will instead see the user educated as to what the correct standard is.
 * 3) Nukapedia and the Vault each set a point of contact on the other's side for reporting potential plagarism.  These issues will be dealt with seriously.  Additionally, both sides agree to police for plagarism and deal with it when it is detected.

GarouxBloodline also created a forum on Nukapedia last week to discuss this, and it can be found here. The main points of discussion there is simply to do your own work and verification and there won't be a need to attribution, but there remains a need have a plagiarism policy in place in the event that attribution was not practiced.

Add your comments below on whether you think the three points above are fair, and if there are any other points that should be made.

Comments
Personally, I believe these terms are fair and it would be good to have a practical guideline on punishment for plagiarism; we have an attribution policy, but not a policy for what happens if that policy is broken. Plus, this cooperation between the two site is likely to increase mutual respect toward the competition, which is something we have needed for four years. I made this forum because I thought the terms were fair, but I did not want to be the sole representative/liason of The Vault to dictate policy. --Kastera (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Terms are fair. I am under the belief, that The Vault here has an opportunity with Fallout 4 to make itself into a unique entity - so copying, in general, is something that I hope all respective wiki editors will avoid now, and in the future.


 * Plagiarism, is something we need to start cracking down on now, though, as copying information verbatim, will do nothing except harm this wiki, and confuse potential readers that travel between varied Fallout resources. And if someone is harming our wiki in such ways, then I do believe that we should have an enforceable policy to help deal with such incidents.


 * Honestly, I do not think that this is an issue with our generation - we have a stable and professional enough system where infighting and politics do not exist to a huge extinct, which means we can normally do our jobs without issue. But having a policy over plagiarism established now, will make sure that it is strong for future generations of wiki editors, dealing with a larger community.


 * Not to mention, that with Fallout 4 coming out soon, we have the very real threat of having content blatantly stolen from us during all of the excitement. GarouxBloodline 17:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No argument from me. The attribution policy has been implemented on The Vault for quite some time, wasn't it?
 * The only concern I have is abuse of the system, aimed at attacking The Vault and its users - or attempts to pass off raw data as original content being copied. Tagaziel (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues with terms above, they seem fair to me as well. As always, though, much will depend on how those rules will be enforced. If it doesn't turn into with-hunt, which I believe won't be the case, then everything should be ok. veryblackraven 18:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't believe that a shared policy would do much. I'm more concerned with the amount of Link rot our references have - and have compiled a list of all external references that I could find.--Ant2242 (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Tag, could you expand on how you think the system could be abused? Our current attribution policy already states that raw data is exempt from attribution. Ant, could you expand on why you don't think a shared policy will do much? --Kastera (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but It wouldn't be polite. Again back to the Link rot, of the list I've made about half are from Forumspring. Forumspring has been Defunct since August and everything here that links there now goes to OK Cupid.--Ant2242 (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This forum is not about link rot, Ant. This is about forming a policy that has the potential to benefit both parties, but you keep changing the subject. If you have something to say about it, say it. Otherwise, you can't complain in the future. Move your link rot concerns to another forum. --Kastera (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My main concern is weather or not both parties would have to police both wikis rather than their own. As for the potential link rot forum, I don't believe that would do much either.--Ant2242 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)