G ( talk ) no, it wasn't arbitrarily derived; it was empirically derived during the course of its trial. — madman 13:36, (UTC) I read the csb source code and did some investigation into the boss api. Is there type of special agreement with them to get free queries? What are the rate limits we respect? About how many queries are made daily? G ( talk ) The wikimedia foundation has a developer account to which Coren, i, and others have access.
Viewing the, similarity, report - guides
— madman 03:49, (UTC) Any characterization of the other half? G ( talk ) Straight-up false positives. — madman 13:36, (UTC) I note that a lot of these false positives are for content that doesn't meet a threshold of originality necessary for copyright protection,. Track labview listings, lists of actors, etc. The similarity to external content could be 100 but if it were a positive it'd still be a false positive. I hope to ask on tuesday how iThenticate might or might not address such content. I'd be very surprised if anything other than rough heuristics could be used to cut down on those positives. — madman 06:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Regarding the wagner-Fischer score, corenSearchBot's scoring. I need to re-read the code and see how the wagner-Fischer scores map to corenSearchBot's scores, because corenSearchBot has a minimum threshold whereas obviously the higher a wagner-Fischer score, the more two documents differ. — madman 03:49, (UTC) Am I correct to assume the threshold was arbitrarily derived, or was some corpus the basis for empirical derivation?
Weaknesses edit, only inspects new articles (as opposed to, say, all significant text additions). Searches for topic instead of verbatim content matching. This presumably works well for new articles because they are relatively obscure topics and sources are likely to appear in top 3 search results. This would not scale well into finding section-wise copyvios on well developed articles. Questions edit, what is csb's false positive rate? What Wagner-Fischer score is csb's cutoff? A preliminary review of the corpus says it's parts about 30, but I need to do manual coding of about three years of dispositions in order to get a statistically sound answer on this one. About half of those false positives are because the content was licensed appropriately, but the bot had no way of knowing that.
Developing a corpus of gold-standard copyvios against which to test future tools. Integrating meta-data based approaches with our current or prospective tools to improve their accuracy. Building and receiving approval for on-wikipedia bots which automatically revert, flag, tag, or list edits that are most likely to contribute copyvios. CorenSearchBot edit, how it works edit feed of new articles are fed into yahoo boss api searches for the subject of the article. Update: i've found Coren's more recent code fuller ( 2010) searches for the subject of the article and for the subject of the article random snippets of the text. — madman 02:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC) pulls the top 3 results, update: Pulls five to six results, it looks like. — madman 02:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC) converts page to text compares wikipedia article and search results with the. WagnerFischer algorithm and computes a difference score, after trying forever to reproduce csb's scores, i finally realized that the wagner-Fischer algorithm is used to compare words as entities, not letters, if that makes sense (distance score is calculated using matching words, inserted words, deleted words). — madman 17:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC) if high enough, means it's a likely copyvio the page is flagged, the creator is notified, and scv is updated.
This page is designed to explore how we can leverage the same approach to the issue of copyright. Copyright violations are a major concern and problem on wikipedia, as the encyclopedia aims to be free for anyone to use, modify, or sell. In order to maintain copyright-compatibility, content on wikipedia that does not share those permissions is severely limited (as in the case of non-free content/fair use and that content is always explicitly tagged or labeled as such. Editors who contribute text or images to the encyclopedia under the auspices that it is 'free' content-when it is actually held under someone else's copyright-introduce practical and legal problems for the community. If we cannot trust that the content on wikipedia is free, then neither can our content re-users. In addition to exposing wikipedia to liability, we do the same for those who take from our site and assume the content has no strings attached (except for mere attribution, and share-alike provisions). Contents, steps for implementation edit, analyzing the operation and evaluating the effectiveness of our current copyvio detection tools (MadmanBot/CorenSearchBot). Analyzing the operation and evaluating the effectiveness of prospective copyvio detection tools (Turnitin).
Similarity, reports and GradeMark: Assignment, turnitin settings
But that's no excuse for poorly-designed software and idiotic academic policies. If the software can't handle submissions from people with international publications, why is it being used on postgraduates at a major university?! Restrict its use lotus to undergraduates only - there might still be some problems with a few senior undergraduates having published a paper or two, but those would be rare. But PhD students should be expected to have a few publications before they start, and will probably have 5-10 by the time they finish. There's only a few ways to give a short history of "related work" in your area; of course you'll use some phrases that you used in your previous publications!
It provided a certain amount of amusement, and I don't anticipate any problems when I meet with the faculty member who evaluates my technical report and the "similarity report" about. I have to say, though, that I'm really wishing I stayed at uvic. This is just insulting. Machine-assisted approaches have proven successful for a wide variety of problems on wikipedia most notably including vandalism and spam. Wikipedia already uses an rule-based edit filter, a neural network bot (Cluebot and a variety of semi-automated programs (Stiki, huggle, igloo, lupin) to determine which edits are least likely to be constructive. The worst of these are reverted automatically without any human oversight while those that fall into a gray area are queued up for manual review, prioritized by suspiciousness based on a number of factors that have correlated in the past with problematic edits.
"Effective use of Multimedia for Computer- Assisted Musical Instrument Tutoring". In emme '07: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Educational Multimedia and Multimedia education, pages 6776, new York, ny, usa, 2007. There's no other way to cite that article! (btw, this was the citation that i apparently "plagiarised" from the student in Bristol) I mean, any deviation from the above would be wrong. Ok, i suppose i could omit the page numbers, or write the conference name in a slightly different manner (like omitting the "emme '07" part). The best papers would cite articles in the same way, probably even using the shared databases of bibtex entries like dblp, the collection of Computer Science bibliographies, or getting a bibtex entry directly from the publisher's website).
What's more, their "service" clearly identified my bibliography as such - so why complain about the similarity in citations? That just doesn't make sense. I have nothing against computerized grading of student work - i mean, that's half my masters, and will be half my PhD thesis. I'm quite aware of the pressures on universities and colleges, and the overwhelming amount of student cheating that goes. There was an outrageous amount of plagiarism going on in the course i was teaching, and it really sucked to give grades to the cheaters (I lacked solid evidence) and see hard-working (but non-cheating) students only complete two assignments out of five. And technology definitely can play a role in keeping this under control.
Turnitin : the similarity report settings
You're flagged because you've cited the same paper in your report that you'd previously cited in an international publication for which you were the primary author. (a different paper than last time) you've plagiarized a citation to your own international conference paper from an undergraduate student paper from Bristol which (presumably) cited you. All examples are presented in their entirety - there wasn't more text connected to the statistics example which i've omitted to make a joke. It really complained about "mean is blah, standard deviation is blah". Furthermore, the bibliography "similarity" was a huge portion. The "similarity index" of my 20-page report was 10, but when I select the "exclude bibliograph" list option, that dropped. This is quite puzzling - a bibliographic entries should be exactly the same as other papers. I mean, given text like this:.
Which was inside"tion marks. And followed by a citation giving the exact page number of the". Intead of "the" i should have said "the blatant theft of intellectual property". Chug the glass if you've plagiarised. " work in computer-assisted composition kingdom has focused on either ". Hey, i just plagiarised a phrase from an international conference paper. For which I was the primary author!
else writes about means and standard deviations, after all! Your bibliography itself is plagiarised! Yep, using exactly the same authors, article title, journal title, volume, number, and year as other people is a sure sign that you're a pirate! You get flagged for a using direct sentence from another paper.
program funded thesis by the european commision's framework programme 6 ". Because this kind of phrase is so unique, it's impossible that two people could think of it independently! the fundamental frequency of the signal. However, for other instruments, the frequency, of the ". Yep, gotta be careful about words like "for "other "of and "the"! And obviously anybody using the words "fundamental frequency" in an engineering PhD report must be up to no good! An algorithm which, could be tweaked, tO change, tHE personality of the ". We're still prickly about the words "to "of and especially "the".
View turnitin similarity report (student)
Postgraduates students in the department of Electronics and Electrical. Engineering at the University of Glasgow are forced to submit our yearly progress reports to the the plagiarism detection website "turn it in". Leaving aside the questionable copyright and privacy issues involved in tying academic progression to an independent for-profit company, i was amused by how badly their "service" worked. I assignment therefore created a drinking game to celebrate its ineptitude. Text, in bold capitals indicates the portions of my report which were "similar" to other work. Drink a finger's width if turnitin accuses you of plagiarising. note.5.5 1 ". Because table headers are such valuable intellectual property!