Copying and changing content from wikipedia

My friend is involved in writing content pages for a website. He is taking the help from mostly wikipedia with changing or modifying every line with his own. I does not mean he is copying each and every line but changing the each text line with his own writing.It also does not mean that if wikipedia has an article with 1000 words, he is not copying all the content but taking at the max 600-700 words or more than 50% from wikipedia with all lines changed when he writes.
Is that good? He said that he can escape duplicate penalty from google as no line matches from wikipedia as each and every line has been modified.
Is that correct. He says as wikipedia is a good source of information, if you want a good content for your site, that is fine. Please provide honest replies if Google/Wiki can really catch the site. The site is an informative site.

 

Well, you can "get away" with it since the content is being rewritten, but I think that over simplifies several issues.

First, the writer is not doing his/her due diligence in going to one source to, "research" his/ her topic. Many sources and points of view and information sources should be found and considered when researching for content to be developed.

Second, I am never confident in the information on Wiki being accurate. Anyone could have written it, anyone can go in and edit it.

Third, if you are essentially using the same outline as Wiki, giving the same content, same POV, same information, but finding synonyms so it doesn't look plagiarized, are you providing quality content? My answer would be no.

 

if he 'wrangles' it sufficiently, it is to all intents and purposes 'new' content. Although he does have a duty to research in more than one place. ContentBoss has a 'content Wizard Pro' feature. Enter a topic, click a button, get stuff you can wrangle. Easy.

 

Seems to me like a total waste of time.

Does your friend think that his rewritten content will outperform the original in the SERPs? Does he truly think he is the first person to 'discover' the open source nature of Wikipedia and exploit it this way? If he is being paid for this work, does his customer know they are paying for an edit of Wikipedia and not original content?

And, finally, if he is expending so much effort to rewrite the original, why not simply write something new to begin with?

 

Seconded. Use the time to do something new and worthwhile.

 

I personally dont feel that this will be going to help in rankings. Unless and untill the rewritten content is highly unique and seo optimized.Tell your friend to research and write to get more visitors.

 

I think the content will help

 

My thoughts are that if a writer doesn't research the subject matter from at least two sources then the "original" article they write will read similar to the article they got the information from. Good writers read multiple sources, they bother to check facts, they spend time on research and then rewriting to get the article in first-rate shape.

The easiest rule to remember that many employers want to forget is that, generally, if you pay bargain basement rates and cut corners what you get will be inferior. Read it, understand it and your business will be that much simpler to understand.

 

If the site is an informative site then your friend will do better to research in more authenticated sources. Wikipedia is a free site where anyone with any level of knowledge or for that matter any level of ignorance can type in the content.So its always a better idea to research in at least one or two places before a claim for original and accurate content is made.

The other thing being whether or not your friend is changing the words around its still copying and not fresh.

For eg. : A friend of mine is creating content pages for an informative site .He largely depends on Wikipedia for his content, though he does vary the wording of each and every line......

QUOTE=indianeyes;10022086]My friend is involved in writing content pages for a website. He is taking the help from mostly wikipedia with changing or modifying every line with his own. I does not mean he is copying each and every line but changing the each text line with his own writing.It also does not mean that if wikipedia has an article with 1000 words, he is not copying all the content but taking at the max 600-700 words or more than 50% from wikipedia with all lines changed when he writes.
Is that good? He said that he can escape duplicate penalty from google as no line matches from wikipedia as each and every line has been modified.
Is that correct. He says as wikipedia is a good source of information, if you want a good content for your site, that is fine. Please provide honest replies if Google/Wiki can really catch the site. The site is an informative site.[/QUOTE]

 

Personally I've found Wikipedia to be very inaccurate. Several pages within a related topic will often contradict each other, an obvious example of this would be dates in the historical record varying considerably and with no explanation as to which is considered more accurate.

The editors are for the most part responsible, but the project is too large to be really effective considering there are no paid editors.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. They have good intentions at Wiki, but the thing has become so massive that it's nearly impossible to "police", so to speak, anymore. Still, it's a decent place for information, but I wouldn't take it at much more than that. It's certainly not to be used as an authority source for your writing.

 

Taking content from Wikipedia is not a wise move. Firstly, who's to say the content is accurate. Anyone can edit the pages and add what they think. Secondly, your friend isn't doing the new website any favours by rehashing old content. To draw readers, content should be unique or should at least complement the existing wiki articles.
Why not take some element of the wiki article and create a new article to explore it further or discuss its merits, even citing the wiki article as inspiration?? That would be a new, unique article, of value to readers if properly written and researched.
Take a look at Checking Your Facts on the Internet - the Research Risk (at http://www.freewritingadvice.com/articles/index_files/66research.htm), for a quick view of why you need to be careful when you research on the web.

 

I'm surprised at some of these responses about Wikipedia, I mean, I've always found it extremely reliable when I've used it for essays and the similar. But, as said, don't rewrite... write. Yes, there's a difference. Just because an article can pass Copyscape doesn't mean it's unique.

 

I've found them to be unreliable not just because of errors, but more for omissions. Even if a lot of it is actually factually correct, they're not a reliable source as far as any kind of citations go because A) there aren't necessarily author qualifications, B) those cited passages can be changed at any time, and C) you don't know how much of that info was added legally to begin with (I've found instances where very minor rewrites of protected pieces from "real" sources have been used, which is often a copyright violation - you don't want to then take that same info, create a derivative work by rewriting it, and then risk having the copyright holder go after you if they find your article). When you're writing for clients, it's best to always work with completely verifiable sources, and stable ones.

 

Don't use that trick.

You site could be banned in SERP.

Just make or buy unique content....

 

Really hate receiving contents from writers who are plainly rewriting contents at Wiki. I have tried it ones and will never ever be willing to accept it again. I had to rewrite the whole thing and do the research myself. Honestly, even if the words are changed and sentences are modified, the work will still be worthless.

 

If your english is good & you know how to edit the content by changing the grammatical pattern into your own words grammatical pattern than you can change the content.

 

It's not easy to imagine how you'd actually save time and effort by doing this. And by the time you take into account the fact that you'd effectively be putting your name and reputation as a writer to something of (a) unknown, (b) unverified and (c) sometimes very questionable source, it's really not an attractive proposition at all.

 

Wikipedia content is susally... pretty dry.

good for a definition, say, of the history of recesison, but not really what your average article reader or book reader would find "flow-wy".

just my 0.02

 

A key issue here is plagiarism. Be upfront and honest. Would you be willing to tell a purchaser of your content that you just rewrote a Wikipedia article? Now, if you took notes on the article and added some of your own content, then that's better. It's just as easy to get older content from one source as it is from three. Get one main point from three different articles, including their sub points. It's not that hard to be above reproach.