1. Wikipedia avoids weasel words. It attributes statements to their sources, rather than to “some people say”. Can you imagine a newspaper surviving five minutes with such a policy?
2. When somebody hoaxes Wikipedia, the article quickly gets investigated and deleted within three weeks (and yet this case is held up as an example of Wikipedia’s unreliability). When somebody hoaxes the mainstream media, they carry on credulously reprinting the press releases five years later.
3. Wikipedia has a policy against plagiarising newspapers. Judging from the amount of times I’ve blurted “hey — I wrote that!”, while reading The Metro on the tube*, the reverse policy doesn’t apply.
4. You can correct mistakes in Wikipedia. You cannot correct mistakes in the Daily Telegraph, even if you were the subject expert quoted in the item.
5. Wikipedia is not about to go bankrupt.

Add your own in the comments.

(Inspired by Bora.)

* actually, I don’t read the metro on the tube. not since the incident with the john peel obituary.

Continue reading at Journalology.

from: Dr. Christian V. Zalai <paeon2010@yahoo.ca>
to: joe@cotch.net
cc: info-en-c@wikimedia.org, Alexandra Lucas <alexandra.lucas@medicine.ufl.edu>
date: Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM
subject: Potential copyright infringement

Hello Mr. Dunckley!

While studying, I happened to stumble upon a page on Wikipedia published by you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coagulation

I just wanted to let you know that the thrombosis cascade figure you posted, modified, then claimed as your own was actually designed and drawn by me and published in my book chapter. Here is the reference: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a732987966?words=cardiovascular*|plaque*

Officially, this represents a copyright violation. Unofficially, I really don’t mind you publishing that figure (I’d like to think the simplicity of the drawing is what makes it a good figure) and I truly appreciate everything wikipedia stands for. But I would like to be credited for that image with the hours of work that went into it, and really disapprove of you publishing that figure as if it were your own. Please give credit where credit is due.

Thanks very much,
Christian Zalai

Christian V. Zalai, MDCM, MSc
General Surgery, McGill University
paeon2010@yahoo.ca

(I don’t actually publish Wikipedia, you know.  I think it’s published by some non-profit org somewhere.  I’m not entirely sure that Wikipedia would fit on my server, actually — I heard it’s quite big.)

from: Joe Dunckley <joe@cotch.net>
to: “Dr. Christian V. Zalai” <paeon2010@yahoo.ca>
date: Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM
subject: Re: Potential copyright infringement

hi Christian,

could you clarify, are you claiming that you *drew* the diagram, or
that the diagram is based on your figure. the source you give is
closed access, so it’s not clear from your message.

cheers,
joe

…

from: Dr. Christian V. Zalai <paeon2010@yahoo.ca>
to: Joe Dunckley <joe@cotch.net>
date: Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:40 PM
subject: Re: Potential copyright infringement

hi Joe,

I did actually draw the diagram myself, using corel draw. The link was to the publisher.
The ebook version is accessible online, usually through your university library and only if they bought it.

Just out of curiosity, where DID you find this image?

Chris

…

from: Joe Dunckley <joe@cotch.net>
to: “Dr. Christian V. Zalai” <paeon2010@yahoo.ca>
date: Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:27 PM
subject: Re: Potential copyright infringement

hi Chris,

thanks for clarifying that you drew this exact diagram. not being at
an academic inst these days, i can’t get closed access pubs. you
presumably have a copy of your own though — perhaps you would like to
take another look at it yourself, have another think about the claim
you have made, and get back to me. let me know what you find, and
i’ll choose my response from there.

cheers,
joe

…

from: Dr. Christian V. Zalai <paeon2010@yahoo.ca>
to: Joe Dunckley <joe@cotch.net>
date: Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:34 PM
subject: Re: Potential copyright infringement

hi Joe,
The original version of the figure you are claiming as your own is published in Cardiovascular Plaque Rupture, ed. D.L Brown. I am waiting for a .pdf version from the publisher since the original files and manuscript are with another coauthor. Once I get the .pdf, I’ll be able to confirm my claim.

Chris

…

from: Joe Dunckley <joe@cotch.net>
to: “Dr. Christian V. Zalai” <paeon2010@yahoo.ca>
date: Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:58 PM
subject: Re: Potential copyright infringement

you could always see if you can find it in google book search…

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=5Jd0teC3byIC&dq=Cardiovascular+Plaque+Rupture&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=KZxpsA4Dgk&sig=lY21_-oXWdxpsETg5o_7PiVtIoY&ei=s7OQSbaLKJ6z-QaY74SHCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA448,M1

There ended our exchange.  (Playing the Google card was rather spontaneous, and perhaps had I thought it through first, I would have saved it and seen where the thread went.)  It has been a year, and I’m still waiting for Dr Zalai to get back to me with confirmation of his claim.

Here then are a few tips for anybody who is thinking of making spurious legal-chill threats and who wants to avoid making the same schoolboy errors that Christian here made:

1. Avoid making a claim that concerns basic uncopyrightable facts about how biology works.
2. Don’t make your claim too outrageous: claiming something that is impossible — that somebody stole a scalable vector graphic with a transparent background straight from a book, say — makes you look just the tiniest bit silly.
3. Try to avoid sending your threats to somebody who is passionate about open science, copyright reform, and keeping lawyers out of science.

If you fail to follow this simple advice, you might just find yourself being mocked in public.