Talk:E.E. Cummings/@comment-98.15.133.167-20130430092923/@comment-4097182-20180420023406

I ran into this comment today, and was going to delete it, but I think this is a valuable teaching tool. So, let me go over the points, in reverse order.

1) Sections 1-3 are essentially from the Wikipedia article: this is not plagiarism. Plagiarism is hiding one's source; here Wikipedia is credited. I don't think the commenter is lying about plagiarism, just ignorant.

2) Nor is the text stolen; Wikipedia text is open source, which anyone may copy if they follow the rules about giving credit (see point 1). Similarly, all the original text written on PPP is open source - anyone else, including Wikipedia, may copy it if they follow the simple rule about giving credit. Probably the commenter never learned about open source in school, so it's more ignorance, not just on his part but on his teachers' - I doubt they even mention the idea).

3) Some of the Wikipedia articles have needed rewriting, but some (like this one) on the most popular poets, are very good. Our goal is to have good articles, not to be "original". There are over 1,000 original articles on PPP, but those have been written where other sources (Wikipedia, EB, DNB) have nothing, or nothing satisfactory - we've chosen to concentrate on those, rather than reinvent the wheel on good articles like this one.

4) The PPP improvements are mainly in Sections 4 (bibliography) and 7 (the External links), but there are other changes scattered throughout. Other changes are welcome; anyone (save the few blocked for vandalism) is free to add to an article. I urge those who find an article unsatisfactory to work on it. Those who would like a completely original article are welcome to submit one.