Copying and changing content from wikipedia

Better you make your unique content..or rewrite it

 

It's been my experience that Wikipedia checks every point meticulously. I've posted content there before, and they made sure that everything dealing with scientific evidence is completely referenced. It could post for a day, and the moderator will go in and yank anything that is inaccurate.

You can re-write, many say 60% is safer for seo duplicate content for organic or google pacification, but that is like saying you can't write. Anyone writing an article or blog (there is a difference in writing styles) should be able to do their own content. You take the facts, learn from them, and then you are the person with the knowledge, you translate this from specialist to generalist, in most cases, so people who are seeking the info can reasonably understand and be "entertained" in the process.

lol, my soapbox. but the point is that YOU are person THEY are hoping will be able to convey the point to them in the most effective and interesting manner. If you just re-write, you are not achieving this, you are just filling space for seo purposes; if that is your job, then go ahead, but if you are actually getting viewers, then you are not going to get anywhere until you appeal to the mob.

 

I've found Wikipedia articles to be enlightening when I am not sure or completely ignorant on any given subject, but from that point of information to using the entire information of the page only to rewrite it, that is not something I would recommend or do.

I would suggest to your friend and to you as well to take a tour and select three pages at random on any given subject that you have to write about. Also read! read a lot, copywriters have the untold requirement to be experts on almost everything and any subject.

I do not agree that there are other websites that are more reliable than others since anyone can write something and post it, the same thing happens with books and magazines... Do not believe everything you read, apply your common sense and, since you are reading from other parts you will be able to discern the truth from the manure...

 

One of my clients in USA told me to keep two things in mind while composing her blogs.

1) Avoid using the word `one' instead of `you' "one can check out the same at blah blah blah"

2) Avoid sourcing research material from "Wiki"

 

This is a really good explanation.

It's a "stew" of knowledge. If we are making strides in gaining more knowledge on a subject, we also realize how many times researchers have back-tracked on what they said, due to finding another supporting theory, or a dead-end. The sensationalism, however, is what makes good writing good! I will write ethically, but sell the sizzle along with the steak.

 

It depends on whether or not the client has specific needs. If the client needs a simple article and does not care about content or quality, then this might be sufficient. However, if the client wants professional quality content then this would not pass muster, at least with my editors.

 

The site wont get banned for duplicate content at worst the article written might not get listed but it would have to be very very close to the same as the original, or the wiki page. Very rarely are sites banned, if that were true ezine articles and all the article submission sites would be banned. Tons of people upload articles to multiple submission sites the submission site wouldn't get banned for that and neither would your friends site.

Duplicate content penalties don't ban an entire site. The search engine would normally keep the article listed that it finds first and believes is original, all other duplicated content would not get listed, (not the entire site).

 

That being said he could get some top listings for rewording correctly, but it is almost harder to do that than just write another article from scratch.

 

Really. Even zapping the text with a synonym replacer first and desperately trying to make sense of the results. Does rewriting really save time? Does wikipedia even have articles on weight loss and debt consolidation?

 

I totally disagree with the concept of rewriting. Then there are articles comprising of tough words which might be understood by native US or UK citizens, but will pose problems to others. Why can't it all be kept simple? Composing an article properly, requires researching from different sites in order to ensure both clarity & quality. Part of the blame lies on the providers who insist on including weird `key phrases' and at times demanding 10% key density

 

Thank you webguy444! ;-)

 

Wiki is useful for background, but not for article content. A better way is to read three or four articles, then write your own article as if you were explaining the topic to a friend. Much more flow, no questionable ethics.

 

1) "Wrangled" content can be considered "derivative works" and subject to whatever copyright restrictions (WP is NOT necessarily public domain - there are rules for acknowledging the works etc). So don't assume that you'll be off the hook from a copyright law standpoint.

2) If you simply shuffle paragraphs around and replace some words with new ones, don't underestimate some SEs' abilities to distill "your" text into the same source as the original. As WP has far more backlinks, chances are you'll be at the back of the bus as far as SERPs are concerned.

3) WP is not perfect by any means, but as a creative commons it is an incredible example of how collaborative work can be woven together into a very meaningful and valuable end result. Yes, there are, and will be, ommisions and errors, but any WP content is to be considered an open document which is constantly under revision (provided the interest is there). Some topics are handled better than others, but overall, the WP methodology for collating and "neutralizing" content is commendable.

Copycats are a dime a dozen - why not learn to write on your own? Pick a topic, research it, and blast out your own content. Of course, be sure to protect it from "wranglers".

 

I think you already know the answer (which is an emphatic 'no', btw) to this and you are just looking for justification.

 

Just use Wikipiedia as one source of research (and get others). As you see from all the responses, I think you have enough reasons why it is a bad idea.

 

The only two uses for Wikipedia in research is to get a brief, uninformed preview of a topic, assuming you know absolutely nothing at all about it, and to find a couple of links. Otherwise, throw Wikipedia to the dogs.

As others pointed out, plagiarism is a serious ethical issue. Now, there are many in the world who could care more about turning a buck than observing any kind of rules at all. Don't let that be YOU, though. You can be better than that.

 

Try to make a unique content..

 

content wrangling, done right, is no more 'unethical' than spellchecking, or using a dictionary.

>click<

So don't presume that you will be off the hook from a copyright law perspective.
If you simply shuffle text around and replace some words with new ones, don't undervalue some SEs' capabilities to distill "your" text into the same source as the first. WP isn't perfect by any means, but as a creative commons it is an amazing example of how cooperative work can be woven together into a particularly suggestive and valuable end result.

Yes, there are, and may be, ommisions and blunders, but any WP content is to be considered an open document which is consistently under review ( provided the interest is there ). Some subjects are handled better than others, but overall, the WP technique for assembling and "neutralizing" content is worthy. Copycats are a penny a dozen - why not learn how to write on your own? Pick a subject, research it, and blast out your own content. Naturally, be certain to protect it from "wranglers".

>click<

So don't think that you will be off the hook from a copyright law viewpoint. As WP has way more backlinks, possibilities are you will be at the rear of the bus so far as SERPs go. WP isn't perfect by any means, but as a creative commons it is a phenomenal example of how co-operative work can be knitted together into an especially pointed and valuable final result. Yes, there are, and could be, ommisions and mistakes, but any WP content is to be considered an open document which is continually being reviewed ( provided the interest is there ).
Some subjects are handled better than others, but overall, the WP system for collecting and "neutralizing" content is worthy. Copycats are commonplace - why not find out how to write on your own? Choose a subject, analyze it, and blast out your own content.

 

That's still a rather obvious rip. And for the record, while rewriting Wiki's content may be allowable under their rules, the same does not apply to original material posted here by members. Don't do it again please.