Definitions from Dictionaries

[Ardchoille]

Back in June, we had this exchange in the Q&A thread:

Would copying a definition from the dictionary be considered plagiarism?

Generally, no, but watch how you do it.

• Don't mention the name of the dictionary -- you may end up with either a Real World reference or a Branding violation.
• Don't bother with a dictionary definition of something really basic, like "dog".
• Do check out how other authors dealt with this legally by going through the Passed Resolutions thread (searching it for defined/defining/definition should make that fairly painless).

My thinking at the time was that this would avoid unnecessary threadjacks over concepts that have proven controversial (such as "gun" or "foetus") and improve clarity, letting authors concentrate on the essence of their proposal.

Four months down the track, it isn't working. Authors are not including any disclaimers in their text (eg, "ADOPTING the dictionary definition of 'bacon' as 'cured meat from the back or sides of a pig' "), or any other wording to signal that the definition is not their own. That's not good.

Worse, people apparently regard Wikipedia as a dictionary. When I checked back yesterday, I found three Wiki'd proposals in the past couple of weeks, one deleted on other grounds and two failing to achieve quorum. I'm a fan of WIkipedia, but even I have to admit that its open-source structure rules it out as a basis for international law. We don't want players changing Wiki to win arguments on NS, as has already happened in another NS forum.

We also don't want punish unfairly players who mistakenly use the June free pass for dictionaries to put Wiki definitions in an otherwise original, fully drafted proposal.

So: the ruling allowing dictionary definitions in proposals is hereby RESCINDED.

What we're putting in its place I'll explain in the next post, so Kryo can link it easily into the rules.

[Ardchoille]

Some concepts are so complex, technical or controversial that players prefer to use dictionary definitions instead of writing their own.

However, naming the dictionary in the proposal text introduces real-world violations. Not naming it risks accusations of plagiarism.

We will therefore accept definitions that, while obviously based on a dictionary definition, have been paraphrased by the proposal author.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Do not use Wikipedia definitions. If in doubt, ask experienced players in the drafting thread, post in Q&A or, as a last resort, post in Moderation.

[Christian Democrats]

Do not use Wikipedia definitions.

I'm not a fan of this. Some Wikipedia definitions are quite good.

For example, a player writing a proposal to regulate the auto industry might ask himself, "What exactly is a car?" He goes to Wikipedia and reads, "An automobile, autocar, motor car or car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor." Thus, in his proposal, he defines car as "a wheeled motor vehicle that can be used for transporting passengers and carries its own engine or motor." What would be wrong with this definition? It is concise, and it accurately defines the word "car."

[United Federation of Canada]

Do not use Wikipedia definitions.

I'm not a fan of this. Some Wikipedia definitions are quite good.

For example, a player writing a proposal to regulate the auto industry might ask himself, "What exactly is a car?" He goes to Wikipedia and reads, "An automobile, autocar, motor car or car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor." Thus, in his proposal, he defines car as "a wheeled motor vehicle that can be used for transporting passengers and carries its own engine or motor." What would be wrong with this definition? It is concise, and it accurately defines the word "car."

I FULLY support the Secretariats position on this. Then maybe you will stop posting several links in every argument you make that have nothing to do with NationStates.

[Christian Democrats]

First, as usual, I have no clue what you are talking about.

Second, this topic is about a change to the proposal rules.

Third, you regularly cite Wikipedia articles in General Assembly debates.

viewtopic.php?p=16546227#p16546227
viewtopic.php?p=16176469#p16176469
viewtopic.php?p=16176317#p16176317
viewtopic.php?p=16175830#p16175830
viewtopic.php?p=14347024#p14347024

I suggest that you stay on topic.

[Ardchoille]

Some Wikipedia definitions are quite good. But they can be changed at will. We want a rewrite thorough enough to take the information but make it yours .. pretty much what players have been doing all along.

We're also concerned about flow-on effects. Once we say, "Sure, use that bit of Wiki in your text", there's always That Player who pushes it: "If Wiki's definitions are OK, then what about this bit? And this bit? Look, I actually wrote this bit ...".

Nuh-uh.

This is a "put it back the way it was" ruling. Facts may be gleaned from wherever you researched your topic; words have to come from you, the author. You're the one who'll be taking the credit, not Mr Funk and Mr Wagnell.

There shouldn't be much need for dictionary definitions, anyway. Most common words, such as "car", you won't need to define often. If you have to for some aspect of the category, or to seal up a loophole, or other specifically NS GA-related purpose, you definition will probably be so targeted that it won't look like any standard dictionary definition.

EDIT: UFC, cut it out; CD, don't rise to the bait.

I left this open for comment, not for standard GA sniping. It's taking back a change, not adding a change. It's about use of dictionary definitions in the text of a proposal, not in argument during the drafting process.

[Araraukar]

If I may ask, how exactly are we to change a dictionary definition enough to comply, without screwing up the meaning in the process? And what if Wikipedia uses the actual dictionary definition from something like Oxford Dictionary - are we then banned from being able to use the Oxford Dictionary definition as a starting point?

[Kryozerkia]

If I may ask, how exactly are we to change a dictionary definition enough to comply, without screwing up the meaning in the process? And what if Wikipedia uses the actual dictionary definition from something like Oxford Dictionary - are we then banned from being able to use the Oxford Dictionary definition as a starting point?

Paraphrasing. It's a great exercise in effective communication.

[Ardchoille]

If I may ask, how exactly ... <snip>

Probably people will do it the same way they did before the fateful day and hour of 11.20pm on Thursday, June 20, 2013. Delegates will use their *cough* commonsense. They'll check the dictionary for the facts, then paraphrase the original sensibly. (Like, "lachrymosal" --> "eye-watering", but not --> "tear-jerking".)

... And what if Wikipedia uses the actual dictionary definition from something like Oxford Dictionary ...

Then you'll check the Oxford Dictionary to see if Wiki has quoted it properly. And I would hope you won't do it by using the link Wiki gives you. Dutifully Google it independently, just to make sure they're not sneakily referring you to some faked-up Oxford. Once you get there, dictionary protocol takes over.

The benefits I can see in linking to it in the rules would be:

• Easily accessed, instead of having to plough through Q&A
• Acknowledges that authors do look at dictionaries, so people don't feel they have to deny it
• Reduces threadjacks due to dictionary wars
• Recognises that consulting a dictionary is not done with the same intent as plagiarism. Dictionary entries are meant to be looked at. It's their purpose in life.

This is not meant to be a revolutionary move to overthrow all that was once good and noble. It's meant to reverse a decision that had unexpected effects. It's now once again forbidden to copy a dictionary entry word for word. The change, if it is a change, is just that you don't have to skirt around your source, and can ask other players to help with paraphrasing.

So, any comment on whether the second post gets the point across?

[The Akashic Records]

*Is assuming that this is an OOC thread*

I'm of the opinion that things that needs defining are those that are used outside of their normal usage, or the conditions by which they become applicable to the resolution at hand, or as per the second post. Otherwise, I say stick to the CSA if you're not that happy with how things are worded, and bide your time for a repeal.

While wikis are a good place to get a glance on a subject matter, to actually use it as the holy grail of the argument is the equivalent of taking the research material of a five-year old (apologies to five year old geniuses) and saying that it is on the same standard as renowned scientists in whatever field is unrelated to whatever that five-year old did.

Though, at least, we'll have somewhere to point people to when dictionary-wankers show their face.

[Araraukar]

I'd like to make clear that I only use direct Wikipedia linkage in the debate to illustrate a point - any actual dictionary definitions I refer to, I check from the online dictionaries available. Not that I've written more than one proposal attempt (and to my knowledge didn't steal the definitions from anything but my own brain).

Though, at least, we'll have somewhere to point people to when dictionary-wankers show their face.

That's still allowed in the debate itself, just not the resolution text. (If I got it right.)

[Kryozerkia]

I'd like to make clear that I only use direct Wikipedia linkage in the debate to illustrate a point - any actual dictionary definitions I refer to, I check from the online dictionaries available. Not that I've written more than one proposal attempt (and to my knowledge didn't steal the definitions from anything but my own brain).

Though, at least, we'll have somewhere to point people to when dictionary-wankers show their face.

That's still allowed in the debate itself, just not the resolution text. (If I got it right.)

Exactly. Wikipedia articles are fair game in debate, not in the proposal itself. This ruling applies to the proposal itself, not the debate surrounding the proposal. Delegates and ambassadors are permitted and encouraged to continue to use the sources they feel support their side during debate.

[The Akashic Records]

I'd like to make clear that I only use direct Wikipedia linkage in the debate to illustrate a point - any actual dictionary definitions I refer to, I check from the online dictionaries available. Not that I've written more than one proposal attempt (and to my knowledge didn't steal the definitions from anything but my own brain).

Though, at least, we'll have somewhere to point people to when dictionary-wankers show their face.

That's still allowed in the debate itself, just not the resolution text. (If I got it right.)

My gripe with dictionary-wankers is both on the text, and the debate, to an extent. While clarifying a point and using wikis as a jumping point to get people acquainted with a subject, seeing people actually taking it as their proposal text just makes me want to use my character to defenestrate people at random. Serious resolution authors would've taken heed of Kryo's advice in step 5 of the resolution writing guide.

*sees Kryo's post*

Uh, what Kryo said.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Wait, it was EVER ok to just copy paste from somewhere? Uh, didn't know that. I've used definitions from wikipedia/dictionaries in arguments, but never in the text of a proposal. I didn't know that we ever could, but why would you?

[Araraukar]

Wait, it was EVER ok to just copy paste from somewhere? Uh, didn't know that. I've used definitions from wikipedia/dictionaries in arguments, but never in the text of a proposal. I didn't know that we ever could, but why would you?

I know some of the more technical definitions (like radiological weapon or something like that - not saying the definition on that proposal was stolen, just using as an example) have probably been found in dictionaries, but serious authors would've had to paraphrase anyway, due to word count limit and all that, right?

[Dellin]

One thing I am confused about is the line between plagiarism and paraphrasing. Paraphrasing, in most cases, without attribution, is a form of plagiarism.

Also, what exactly is the point of allowing paraphrasing, but not the use of basic dictionary definitions verbatim? All paraphrasing is is the exact definition in probably less clear language. So, both equate to mostly the same thing, therefore making a ban on using definitions verbatim pretty pointless and just lending to: 1) more confusing definitions in resolutions and 2) disingenuous, more complicated forms of plagiarism that are harder to detect.

[The Dourian Embassy]

One thing I am confused about is the line between plagiarism and paraphrasing. Paraphrasing, in most cases, without attribution, is a form of plagiarism.

Also, what exactly is the point of allowing paraphrasing, but not the use of basic dictionary definitions verbatim? All paraphrasing is is the exact definition in probably less clear language. So, both equate to mostly the same thing, therefore making a ban on using definitions verbatim pretty pointless and just lending to: 1) more confusing definitions in resolutions and 2) disingenuous, more complicated forms of plagiarism that are harder to detect.

Paraphrasing a definition isn't quite the same.

Paraphrasing an original work is plagiarism because you're taking an original idea and stealing it. Definitions aren't themselves original.

[Dellin]

Definitions aren't themselves original.

Which is what I was getting at with my second point: if that's true, then why does using a definition verbatim qualify as plagiarism?

[The Dourian Embassy]

Definitions aren't themselves original.

Which is what I was getting at with my second point: if that's true, then why does using a definition verbatim qualify as plagiarism?

You aren't taking the idea, but you are taking the work itself. Someone else wrote that. You can use the idea, but not the exact wording without it being plagarism. Plagarism is almost always about taking someone else's work and pretending it is your own.

[Dellin]

You can use the idea, but not the exact wording without it being plagarism. Plagarism is almost always about taking someone else's work and pretending it is your own.

That's not actually true, but my question was more about: if definitions aren't original, why is using them a problem? Yes, using Wikipedia can lead to wrong conclusions (but that seems to be assuming you use Wikipedia for more than just definitions), but so can an ambassador's mind, which is often more lacking of truth than Wikipedia.

But, it's not that big of a deal, so I won't belabor it.

[Araraukar]

That's not actually true, but my question was more about: if definitions aren't original, why is using them a problem?

That's what I was trying to ask earlier on, but... *shrugs* Maybe the idea is to force more debate and argument over definitions (most likely by using the dictionary definitions the authors won't be allowed to put in the proposals) in proposal threads. I don't know. I don't think I knew there was ever a time you weren't allowed to take a dictionary definition and use it as needed.

[Ardchoille]

What this is about is:

• Back in June, I said it was OK to use dictionary definitions verbatim in proposals
• People did, but didn't acknowledge it was a dictionary definition, OR
• They used Wiki definitions, which, being open-source, are less reliable than dictionaries, OR
• They used it for things that didn't need defining and added nothing to the proposal, because they could.
• Therefore, the ruling that using dictionary definitions is OK is withdrawn.

But the basic need for a definition everyone can agree on remains, and with some extremely technical, or emotionally fraught, definitions, dictionaries are the best way to cut through the drama.

However, if you let slip in debate that you're actually using an outside source as the basis for your proposal text, people start threadjacks worrying about/accusing you of plagiarism, which mods have always treated harshly, usually by expelling the nation from the WA.

That "usually" has been a problem. We want to be both fair and consistent. Expelling everyone who copies anything at all is consistent, but sometimes it doesn't feel fair. Like back when hopeful newbies would submit a prop that they'd obviously worked on offsite, and its only flaw was the unashamedly copied dictionary definition. Seemed mean to kick them.

I dunno about the other mods, but I’d usually just kill the prop, rather than the newbie, and hope nobody else noticed (Shaddup, you lot in Silly and Illegals. Hell, no, Admin, I'm not playing favourites, I don't even know the kid.) It's called "mod discretion", but it felt like indiscretion.

Proposal authors have been feeling a bit indiscreet, too. Using a dictionary definition that you've rewritten has always been legal, but, judging by what I've seen while lurking in offsites where people are composing props, it feels risky. Serious authors who put a lot into both their nation and their proposal settle for obviously clunky definitions rather than even look at a dictionary and, in their eyes, gamble the whole shebang.

We're therefore using this opportunity provided by the withdrawal of my earlier ruling to pin this down in the rules: it's OK to consult a dictionary, and if mods can tell that you've modelled your proposal text definitions on a dictionary definition, that's still OK. However, you must put a bit of yourself into it by paraphrasing the dictionary definition.

This is pretty much the way things have always worked. We're just dragging a grey area into the sun. And maybe cutting down on the collective guilt.

Or maybe not ...

IC: This is the Snakepit. If you're here, Ambassador, you've got a lot to be guilty about. -- (Bar convo)

[WA Kitty Kops]

What this is about is:

Ty, Ard, now it makes more sense.

EDIT: Oops, wrong nation. Meant to post on Araraukar.

[Ardchoille]

*surreptitiously hands over bag of fish-flavoured doughnuts*

Glad to see we've reached an understanding, officer.