User:だ＊ぜ/維基論述/Wikipedia:改述

本文存在多次使用的特定詞彙，為防止出現斷句問題，本文會使用專名號以助區分並協助閱讀。請讀者留意！

改述（英語：paraphrasing），是一種更改原文句子的表述方式，但將原文句子所要表達的含義原封不動呈現給讀者的寫作技巧。這種寫作技巧被廣泛地應用於學術界，用於避免自己的學術著作構成抄襲或侵犯他人版權。如果改述技巧不熟練，會造成改述與原文並無實質差別，而只是單純表面性地更改後，再加入條目中，這種情況被稱之為「近似改述」（closing paraphrasing）。如何避免近似改述的最好方法，就是應使用自己的文字來重新表述或概括原文內容，並依照內容方針添加註腳表明原文來源。

如果只要列明來源、材料在文本中明確歸因列明來源。那麼，在合理範圍內進行有限度的近似改述是適當的。如果欲表達之概念，只能通過使用僅有且類似的表達方式所傳遞，那麼有限的近似改述也是應允的。

沒有文本歸屬的改述行為可能會構成抄襲；且

Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's 版權政策，which forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying material directly from other sources. 公有領域 material must likewise be attributed to avoid plagiarism. If the source material bears a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses, 如果標示了來源，那麼複製或改述行為就不能構成違反版權。 or closely paraphrasing it is not a copyright violation so long as the source is attributed somewhere in the article, usually at the end.

最好的規避近似改述的方法是：瞭解其成因；瞭解如何避免其產生；以及產生時，瞭解如何應對與解決。

法律中的主要概念

複製不是侵犯版權或抄襲的唯一方式，近似改述亦是一種違反行為。

關於使用類似改述的行為，存在相關法律規定、道德準則、和機構標準的考量因素。其中，最直接影響改述方式的，就是版權法。維基百科涉及的最基本的事務為版權條例的約束。於某些國家，類似改述行為亦會被視為：對作品原作者的扭曲或破壞作品的行為；且違反原作者於精神權利。

表述方式

版權並不限制知識及事實本身，但限制它們的表達方式。所以表述文段應盡可能簡潔，以避免應用到基本事實以外的文字，是而侵犯到版權。

例子

在美國之音的一篇文章中，有這樣一段描述：

实际上，4月14日去福特剧院看演出是林肯夫妇放松心情的方式。他们终于有时间享受一下第一家庭的休闲时光了。
当晚，福特剧院正上演精彩的歌剧《我们美国的表兄弟》。剧情渐入高潮，一个名叫「约翰·韦尔斯·布斯」的人如同貓一樣悄悄溜进了总统的包厢。

如在不考慮該來源是否可靠或來源是否受版權法保護的情況下，想要在亚伯拉罕·林肯條目中使用來源所描述的內容，在條目內就應該寫下：

1864年4月14日晚上，林肯夫婦前往福特劇院觀賞歌劇《我們美國的表兄弟》。觀賞期間，一個名為「约翰·韦尔斯·布斯」的人士潛入林肯所在的包廂。

因為事實不受版權法保護，所以單純描述事實的句子可以使用。但文字如「地球生命史」則可能會侵犯版權。而「如同貓一樣」之類的明喻則運用了修辭手法，展現了語言創造力，所以會受到版權的保護。比如將：

⋯⋯如同貓一樣悄悄溜进了总统的包厢。

改成

⋯⋯就像貓一樣躡手躡腳地溜进了总统的包厢。

這種表面粗略地改述並不會，即使與文中使用的這些詞語完全不同，但可能會侵犯版權，因其取用程度已多於單純對事實的表述這一範圍。

判斷相關語句是否侵權當然也存在其他要素，例如：實質取用程度。

實質相似度

實質相似度（substantial similarity；或實質取用程度），是指「對原創性文段的拷貝程度」。

美國版權局闡明道：「版權法並不保證名字、標題、短語，或簡短的表述內容⋯⋯版權局不能為簡單的文字組合進行專有權版權登記⋯⋯為保證版權，作品必須包含有最低限度的原作者信息⋯⋯僅僅標註名字、標題，以及其他短語並不能達到這些（違反版權的）要求。」但如若某個來源的組合、篩選或排列名稱、標題、短語，或表達據有創造性；則過於類似的內容就可能會侵犯版權。

如若來源與條目存在實質相似性，則改述行為可能會造成侵權。

Paraphrasing rises to the level of copyright infringement when there is substantial similarity between an article and a copyrighted source. This may exist when the creative expression in an important passage of the source has been closely paraphrased, even if it is a small portion of the source, or when paraphrasing is looser but covers a larger part of the source or covers "the heart" (the most essential content). A close paraphrase of one sentence from a book may be of low concern, while a close paraphrase of one paragraph of a two-paragraph article might be considered a serious violation. Editors must therefore take particular care when writing an article, or a section of an article, that has much the same scope as a single source. The editor must be especially careful in these cases to extract the facts alone and present the facts in plain language, without carrying forward anything that could be considered "creative expression".

於美國版權法，然而實質相似度並非一直皆為侵權的指標。例如

Under US copyright law, however, substantial similarity does not always indicate infringement. It does not indicate infringement, for instance, where the doctrine of fair use permits the use of the material. Wikipedia deliberately adopts a narrower limitation and exception from copyright than fair use. Our policy and guideline are set out at Wikipedia:Non-free content.

Substantial similarity is also immaterial when strong evidence exists that the content was created independently. An author may think they are being original when they write "Charles de Gaulle was a towering statesman", not realizing that many other authors have independently come up with these identical words. What looks like copying or close paraphrasing may thus be accidental. These similarities are more likely to exist where content is less creative and more formulaic. Independent creation is less likely when there is evidence that the source was consulted or close following is extensive.

精神權利

主页面：Wikipedia:精神權利

維基百科現時並沒有關於著作者精神權利的官方政策。

著作者的精神權利是獨立於作者版權的另一個權利。精神權利與版權一致；其只能應用於表達形式上，而不能適用於單純的事實或真理本身。

精神權利包括了原作者：

1. 對一次創作的控制權；
2. 署名權或匿名權；
3. 對一次創作作品的不可歪曲或損毀的權利。

與版權一致，精神權利只能應用於表達方式，而不適用於純事實。對於精神權利的尊重，可以保證維基百科的內容能夠被儘可能的廣泛應用。且為與「可供查證」方針保持一致，維基百科編輯者不應使用未出版的作品（但於公共資源中未出版內容不適用）。

而於出版物，編者需要註明每一個來源中的作者；若無作者，則應註明來源的出版社。

It is sometimes relevant for an article to include a short quotation such as a significant statement made by the subject of the article or a notable comment about the subject. In these cases a verbatim quotation should be given rather than a paraphrase. Quotations should be used very sparinglyTemplate:Vague and should be clearly identified and formatted as defined in MOS:QUOTE.

改述形式

翻譯

因為翻譯文字或語句替換成相應的中文文字或語句，所以外語翻譯實質上是改述的其中一種形式。

翻譯行為會依據其由外語文獻中所展示之表達形式的實質取用程度，而決定其是否會被准許。如同上面所述，除單純的事實或真理外，所有照搬句子表述的行為都是不允許的。

例如，以下兩個由英文翻譯之文段：

1. 「伊斯坦布爾是一個大城市。」
2. 「太陽如同紅色的圖騰一般，為地球帶來光芒。」

第一個例子僅為簡單的事實陳述，所以理應被准許使用。

第二個例子帶有比喻元素的「隱約透過」和「如同紅色的預兆一般」；所以，儘管使用了與原作完全不同的中文語句來表述，但亦是不可接受的。但是，即使只是傳達事實陳述，翻譯得越多、翻譯得越貼近，就越可能產生版權問題。

篩選與整理

雖然事實不受版權保障，但對於事實的篩選之行為可能會被認為具有原創性，因而受到版權保護。

例如：美國列出的州份名稱排列順序是按字母順序、面積大小還是人口總數，這些皆不受版權保障。然而，若存在一份較短的、經過篩選的美國州份名單，而其依然依如前所述之方式排列（即名稱、大小和人口依次排列），但其多出一項「最適合居住的州份」之元素的情況下；那麼就會因為其篩選及排版的原創性，而受版權保障。

Even when content is verifiably public domain or released under a compatible free license, close paraphrasing may be at odds with Wikipedia's guideline related to plagiarism (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism). While in this context, too, close paraphrasing of a single sentence is not as much of a concern, if a contributor closely paraphrases public domain or freely licensed content, he or she should explicitly acknowledge that content is closely paraphrased. (See below.) Another potential problem arises when a contributor copies or closely paraphrases a biased source either purposefully or without understanding the bias. This can make the article appear to directly espouse the bias of the source, which violates our neutral point of view policy.

維基百科的規定

即使作品是——

1. 於公有領域中；或者
2. 使用自由使用協定授權給他人使用，

而且——

1. 已經標註改述文段的原文來源，

但其依然可能觸犯維基百科內容指引——抄襲。在維基百科中，「近似地改述不受版權保障的原文內容」與「侵犯具有版權的作品」並無不同。

准許近似改述的情況

更多信息：Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright § Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?

There are a few specific situations when close paraphrasing is permitted. If information is gathered from the public domain or is free use content, close paraphrasing may be acceptable. In some instances it is helpful to capture the words as written, in which case the guidelines for Quotations apply. Lastly, there may be some instances where it's difficult to paraphrase because of the nature of the content; in such cases, there are a couple of tips below about how to limit the degree of close paraphrasing to avoid issues.

When using a close paraphrase legitimately, citing a source is in most cases required and highly recommended.

公共領域或兼容許可的內容

於個別的情況下，允許於文中進行類似之概述。例如：

(a) 條目內容是（或，曾是）在1911年Encyclopaedia Britannica（詳見1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica）的基礎之上所建立的；或

(b) 來源文獻屬於公有領域（如美國政府文件）；或

(c) 依據CC-BY-SA和GFDL條款授權。

於上述案例的情況下，方可進行近似改述。

In some limited cases, close paraphrasing may be an acceptable way of writing an article. For example, many Wikipedia articles are (or were) based on text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (see Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica). If the source is in the public domain, such as work of the U.S. government, or is available under a license compatible with the CC-BY-SA license (a partial table of license compatibility can be found at the Copyright FAQ), then the source may be closely paraphrased if the source is appropriately attributed. Attribution in such instances may include in-text attribution that makes clear whose words or ideas are being used (e.g. "John Smith wrote that ...") or may include more general attribution that indicates the material originates from a free source, either as part of an inline citation or as a general notice in the article's "References" section (for further information on how to attribute free sources, see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources).

對於有償版權文本的引述

就如同一系列非自由版權方針和指引所論述的那樣，維基百科允許有限度地引述非自由版權文本，但

Limited quotation from non-free copyrighted sources is allowed, as discussed in Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline. Quotations should have in-text attribution and should be cited to their original source or author (see WP:When to cite). With direct quotation, editors should clearly distinguish the quoted material from the original text of the article following the guidelines for quotations. Extensive use of quotation from non-free sources is generally not acceptable. Even if content is attributed, it can still create copyright problems if the taking is too substantial. To avoid this risk, Wikipedia keeps this—like other non-free content—minimal.

當來源中的確切詞語與文章相關時，非自由來源的報價可能是適當的，而不僅僅是來源提供的事實或想法。 例子可能包括文章中討論的人所作的陳述; 摘自文章中描述的詩歌，歌曲或書籍; 或者關於文章主題的重要意見。 但是，報價不應被視為提取事實和用簡明語言提出事實的替代方法。由此：

• 正確 - 孫中山先生說：「革命尚未成功，同志們仍需努力。」
• 正確 - 《明報》的評論家聲稱該電影「做作且無聊」。
• 錯誤 - 根據《保加利亞的蝴蝶》這本書的記載道：「只要耐心觀察，就有可能會足夠幸運地瞥見這種稀有的飛蛾沿著樹林溪流旁，佈滿青苔的溪畔邊紛飛起舞。」

敘述相同內容的方法會受侷限的情況

如果欲表達的概念，只能通過使用僅有且類似的表達方式所傳達，那麼有限類似之改述也是應允的。此即為何無需規避使用關於科技的用語；亦可能是為何適用於單純的真理或事實稱述。

人物名字、稱謂、組織、書籍、或電影等等，各項內容可以複製。因為名字、標題不存在表述原創性；而這些亦經常是唯一可以定義描述對象的方式。Short catchphrases, slogans or mottos may also be reproduced where relevant to the discussion. It is acceptable to use a technical term such as "The War of the Spanish Succession" or "Relational Database Management System (RDBMS)" when the term is almost always used by sources that discuss the subject, and when such sources rarely use any other term. In this case, the technical term is considered to be "merged" with the idea expressed. There is no reasonable alternative way of expressing the idea, and since ideas are not subject to copyright the term is also not protected. However, if different sources use different terms for the concept, it may be best for the article to use a different term from the source or to include the term in a sourced quote.

An example of closely paraphrased simple statements of fact is given by a biography that relies on two sources for the basic outline. The sources and the article start with:

• Source1：John Smith was born in Hartford, Connecticut on February 2nd 1949... He attended State University, obtaining an M.D. in 1973.
• Source2：John Smith was born on 2 February 1949 in Hartford... He graduated with a medical degree from State University in 1973.
• Article：John Smith was born on 2 February 1949 in Hartford, Connecticut... He studied medicine at State University, and earned an M.D. in 1973.

In this example, the wording of the article is very close to that of both sources. However, the article merely presents standard facts for a topic like this in standard sequence. The article does not copy any creative words or phrases, similes or metaphors, and makes an effort at paraphrasing in the second sentence. Just two short sentences are close to the sources. For these reasons the close paraphrasing should be acceptable.

Note, however, that closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression. The more extensively we rely on this exception, the more likely we are to run afoul of compilation protection.

範例

於此範例中，維基百科條目內容試圖改述來源內容。但是，幾乎所有的文字、排序、句式都是保留原有形式。

來源文段

改述文段

"A statement from the receiver, David Carson of Deloitte, confirmed that 480 of the 670 employees have been made redundant ... At least 100 Waterford Crystal employees are refusing to leave the visitors' gallery at the factory tonight and are staging an unofficial sit-in. The employees say they will not be leaving until they meet with Mr. Carson. There were some scuffles at one point and a main door to the visitors' centre was damaged ... Local Sinn Féin Councillor Joe Kelly, who is one of those currently occupying the visitors' gallery, said the receiver had told staff he would not close the company while there were interested investors."

"A statement issued by the receiver, Deloitte's David Carson, confirmed that, of the 670 employees, 480 of them would be laid off. The workers responded angrily to this unexpected decision and at least 100 of them began an unofficial sit-in in the visitors' gallery at the factory that night. They insisted they would refuse to leave until they had met with Carson. Following the revelations, there was a minor scuffle during which the main door to the visitors' centre was damaged. Local Sinn Féin Councillor Joe Kelly was amongst those who occupied the visitors' gallery."

分析：

• "A statement issued by the receiver, Deloitte's David Carson, confirmed that, of the 670 employees, 480 of them would be laid off" vs. "A statement from the receiver, David Carson of Deloitte, confirmed that 480 of the 670 employees have been made redundant".
  • The structure of Wikipedia's statement is essentially the same as the original. Changing a single word and slightly reordering one phrase is not enough to constitute a paraphrase.
• "They insisted they would refuse to leave until they had met with Carson" vs. "The employees say they will not be leaving until they meet with Mr. Carson".
  • The structure of this sentence is the same as the original with too much similarity within the structure of the paragraph.
• "there was a minor scuffle during which the main door to the visitors' centre was damaged" vs. "There were some scuffles at one point and a main door to the visitors' centre was damaged".
  • The structure and language of the two sentences are the same.
• "Local Sinn Féin Councillor Joe Kelly was amongst those who occupied the visitors' gallery" vs. "Local Sinn Féin Councillor Joe Kelly, who is one of those currently occupying the visitors' gallery".
  • This slight rewording does not change the fact that the underlying structure and language are the same.
  • 細微變動（例如：「在其之中」--> 「是其中一個」；「已佔據」-->「目前正在佔據」）並不足以符合改述原有文段的基本條件。

See below for an example of an unusable paraphrase repaired to become acceptable.

改述內容的許可書寫方式

為正確詮釋內容，編者可以考慮參閱來自可靠來源的信息；提取顯著點；並使用單詞、樣式和句子結構，以草擬文章文本。

記筆記

One of the key factors in the creation of inadvertent close paraphrasing is starting with text taken directly from the source. The word choice and style can easily resurface since it is foremost in our minds. An approach to ensure that information is fully understood and formed into unique thoughts is to isolate the essential information by taking notes.

• 由記綠必要的信息開始，但不能包括用語等其他信息；
• 記綠來源文獻等可供參考信息；
• 從多個來源收集信息，這將會帶來幾個好處——
  1. 條目內容的語氣會更為符合中立立場；
  2. 條目內容對於觀點闡述方面會更為全面；
  3. 參考多個來源所書寫的文段，會比「只參考單一來源的文段」更少依賴來源文字。
• Gather short quotations when they powerfully illustrate a point for your article. Overuse can result in a disjointed article and may breach copyright. (Extensive quotations are forbidden by policy.)

善用草稿

• Gather related items from the multiple sources and explain it to yourself：The point is to rephrase or summarize a body of information in your own words and sentence structure.
• Add inline citations in accordance with the sourcing guideline. Allow time between note-taking and drafting to clear your mind of the original diction and better paraphrase the content.
• Don't paraphrase information in the same order it was presented from the source.

預覽

After material has been written, return to the source to double check for content and properly paraphrased language.

• Information has been gathered from several sources and distilled in your words.
• Quotations are used appropriately and infrequently.
• Words or ideas do not follow the same pattern and order as the source material.

The example above on this page illustrates a common way in which people closely paraphrase content; this one demonstrates how to properly synthesize and paraphrase information.

Example: close paraphrasing repaired

Consider the following example of a close paraphrase (unacceptable version) and ways to correct it to make an acceptable version: Example Wording Comments Source Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936–1938 contains more than 2,300 first-person accounts of slavery and 500 black-and-white photographs of former slaves. These narratives were collected in the 1930s as part of the Federal Writers' Project of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and assembled and microfilmed in 1941 as the seventeen-volume Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States from Interviews with Former Slaves. This online collection is a joint presentation of the Manuscript and Prints and Photographs Divisions of the Library of Congress and includes more than 200 photographs from the Prints and Photographs Division that are now made available to the public for the first time. Born in Slavery was made possible by a major gift from the Citigroup Foundation. Source: Born in Slavery, Library of Congress Unacceptable version A collection of more than 2,300 accounts of slavery taken directly from former slaves and 500 black-and-white photographs make up the Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936–1938. In the 1930s these narratives were compiled in the 1930s as part of the Federal Writers' Project of the Works Progress Administration (WPA). They were aggregated and microfilmed in 1941 as the seventeen-volume Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States from Interviews with Former Slaves. The collection is a united effort of the Manuscript and Prints and Photographs Divisions of the Library of Congress. Citigroup Foundation made the Born in Slavery possible by a major gift. The structure of this version is essentially the same as the original. Changing a few words and slightly reordering phrases is not enough to constitute a paraphrase. Correcting issues – step 1) Bring in other source(s). The Slave Narrative Collection provides a unique and virtually unsurpassed collective portrait of a historical population. Indeed, historian David Brion Davis has argued that the voluminous number of documented slave testimonies available in the United States "is indisputably unique among former slaveholding nations." In addition to the substantial number of life histories it contains, the most compelling feature of the collection is the composition of the sample of people who made up its informants. Although not a representative sample of the slave population, they were a remarkably diverse and inclusive cross-section of former slaves. Those whose voices are included in the collection ranged in age from one to fifty at the time of emancipation in 1865, which meant that more than two-thirds were over eighty when they were interviewed. Source: A Collective Portrait Bringing in other sources helps to ensure that there's a good understanding of the topic and a neutral point of view. Correcting issues – step 2) Read source information, preferably taking notes to extract essential points, and write a summary in your own words, thereby producing an acceptable version. In the 1930s a Works Progress Administration (WPA) project, called Federal Writers' Project, was conducted to capture the history record of people born into slavery. At the time of the project 2/3rds of the more than 2,300 men and women interviewed were over the age of eighty, having been one to fifty years of age when they obtained their freedom in 1865. Over 500 black and white photographs were taken of interview subjects. The Library of Congress Manuscript and Print and Photograph Divisions assembled a seventeen-volume collection from the set, called "Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936–1938." David Brion Davis, a historian, claimed that the large collection "is indisputably unique among former slaveholding nations." This version brings together information from two sources, without maintaining the previous sentence structure or style.

参见：Wikipedia:完美條目

改述文段的考證與處理

考證

Unlike straightforward copyright violations, close paraphrasing is notoriously difficult to detect; frequently the contributor will add wiki syntax and write in the style of a Wikipedia article (as indeed they should). Here are some ways you might detect it:

1. 於同一貢獻者書寫的內容中，搜尋語氣、詞彙或風格的前後脫節或突然轉變。
   • 例如：「貓是一種掠食性的小型食肉類動物。家貓喜歡殺死老鼠和蝙蝠。」 例中可見：前句十分正規，但後句突然變得通俗化；前後語氣及風格明顯脫節。由此判斷，該句子可能進行過改述，甚至於侵權性的複製。
2. 搜尋冗餘內容，這可能表明編者改述了兩個或兩個以上的參考來源。For example, "The cat is a small predatory carnivorous species of crepuscular mammal. Like many pets, domestic cats are carnivorous."
3. Look for content that resembles content included in a quotation.
4. Examine the talk pages of major contributors and other pages where they have written in their own words, and determine if their article contributions substantially differ in tone, structure, and vocabulary from these discussions.
5. Take short phrases from the article and put them in a search engine. Take a look at the results and see if they closely resemble the article.

處理方法

處理方法可能會根據問題的嚴重程度，而有所不同。以下是管理類似之改述的問題的幾種方式。

標註問題

Insert a dispute template and/or engage in a copyright-infringement discussion：Your approach here may depend upon the extensiveness of the issues you discover.

• You can use the {{Close paraphrasing}} template, which can be customized to identify the source and to indicate if the source is public domain, to mark it for cleanup (and usually one would also open a talk page discussion about the matter):

• However, if you believe that the close paraphrasing in question is so close that it infringes copyright, instead follow the instructions at Template:Copyvio, which may require removing the paraphrasing content until it can be repaired. Unless close paraphrasing is immediately obvious, it is good practice to cite specific passages alongside the corresponding passage from the source on the talk page to highlight their similarity; this will provide objective evidence of close paraphrasing.

Notice to the contributor

It is important to discuss your concerns with the contributor. Many people who paraphrase too closely are not intentionally infringing, but just don't know how to properly paraphrase. It might help to point them to this essay or to the references and resources listed here, which include some pointers for proper paraphrasing.

處理其他類型編輯者的辦法

注意：這些示例中的所有文本均由作者釋權至公共領域！

The following example messages can be copied and pasted directly from this page, although you will need to fill in your own example close paraphrases as well as supplying the article's title and the source URL. The messages strive to avoid accusations while at the same time pointing to clear instructions on how to fix errors of this sort. The spaces for examples from the editor's inappropriate text are provided because even experienced or good faith editors may not recognize where the issues lie without them. If there is a passage of several consecutive sentences which is a continuous close paraphrase, this may alone be a sufficient demonstration. Otherwise, showing the pattern in several separated sentences is typically better than offering one, brief example.

極多問題

The following example was engineered for cases when the paraphrasing is close enough to require blanking of the article and listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. It would not be appropriate for situations where the {{close paraphrasing}} template is used, since rewriting can be done on the spot rather than in a temporary page. You may use this example verbatim, if you wish, but may and should modify it if it is not completely appropriate to the circumstances.

Hi. I'm afraid the [[ArticleName]] article you wrote may be a problem under our copyright policies, since the text seems very [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing|closely paraphrased]] from [source]. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:

:example from source
The article says:
:example from article
There are other passages that similarly follow quite closely.

As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright policies]] require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch.

The article has been replaced with a notice of these copyright concerns that includes directions for resolving them. If the material can be verified to be [[Wikipedia:Compatible license|compatibly licensed]] or [[Wikipedia:Public domain|public domain]] or if [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia (or people editing on their behalf)|permission is provided]], we can use the original text with proper attribution. If you can resolve it that way, please let me know if you need assistance with those directions. Otherwise, so that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be rewritten; there is a link to a temporary space for that purpose in the instructions which now appear in place of the article. The essay [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing]] contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches]], while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Please let me know if you have questions about this. --~~~~

有限問題

This example was engineered for cases when the paraphrasing is not enough of a concern to require blanking and listing and the {{close paraphrasing}} template is used instead. You may use this example verbatim, if you wish, but may and should modify it if it is not completely appropriate to the circumstances.

Hi. I'm afraid the [[條目名]] article you contributed to has parts which are very [[WP:close paraphrasing|closely paraphrased]] from [source]. This can be a problem under both our [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright policy]] and our [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism|guideline on plagiarism]].

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:

The source says:

:example from source
The article says:
:example from article
This is an example; there are other passages that similarly follow quite closely.

As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright policies]] require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. So that we can be sure it does not constitute a [[derivative work]], this article should be revised to separate it further from its source. The essay [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing]] contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches]] also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Please let me know if you have questions about this. --~~~~

有關的方針與指引

有些維基百科方針與指引亦與本論述有相關性：

• 維基百科:非原創研究：方針 stating that, while articles should be written in your own words, they should substantially retain the meaning of the source material
• 維基百科:版權信息：方針 that describes general principles that apply to use of copyrighted work
• 維基百科:侵犯著作權：方針 that describes copyright violations and how to address them.
• 維基百科:非自由內容使用準則：定義了使用非免費內容的限制的維基百科方針；
• 維基百科:合理使用：延伸了非自由內容使用準則的維基百科指引and describes when non-free material may be used under the "fair use" principle
• 維基百科:抄襲：描述了即使來源可能不受版權保護亦要列明來源的重要性的維基百科指引；
• 維基百科:列明來源：描述了維基百科條目內容須能由可靠來源驗證，而內容添加者有列明來源的義務的維基百科指引；

Several Wikipedia articles discuss related topics such as Copyright law of the United States, fair use, plagiarism, 精神權利 and paraphrasing of copyrighted material. These may be of interest to editors. However, they may have inaccuracies or omissions, and Wikipedia has a broader aim of providing material that may be used anywhere for any purpose, which imposes further restrictions that are defined in our policies and guidelines.

其他相關

• Wikipedia:Plagiarism (guideline)：Guideline on Wikipedia's definition of and approach to handling plagiarism to avoid making the work of others look like your own.
• "Let's get serious about plagiarism", Wikipedia Signpost (op-ed)：Thorough discussion of Wikipedia's position regarding plagiarism, including how to avoid it, good practices, and how to detect it.
• Wikipedia:Copy-paste (information page)：Information about plagiarism and copyright concerns with copy-paste, which cannot be done except in the case of short quotations.
• Paraphrasing of copyrighted material (article)：An overview of how close paraphrasing is treated under various jurisdictions' copyright laws.
• Idea-expression divide (article)：Idea-expression divide limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the expression or manifestation of that idea.
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright § Derivative works (information page)：Discussion of derivative work：a copyright concern where something that is "based on and a close copy of" another work.
• Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 12 § Derivative works (talk page)：Discussion of paraphrase and abridgement, a copyright concern.
• Wikipedia:Quotations § Copyrighted material and fair use (essay)：Proper use of quotations in articles, with copyright and "fair use" considerations.
• Substantial similarity (article)：Substantial similarity is the standard developed and used by United States courts to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright.
• Scènes à faire (article)：Sometimes there are only so many ways to say something.
• Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary (essay)：Information about how to write a plot summary for a work of fiction.
• Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works (essay)：Among other things, discusses how to avoid copyright violations when writing about fictional works.
• Plagiarism detection (article)：Includes a list of free and commercial plagiarism detection tools.
• Template:uw-paraphrase (template)：User warning which can be left on the talk page of an editor who paraphrases copyrighted material too closely on Wikipedia.

外部鏈接

• WMF legal's comments on close paraphrasing
• Paraphrase：Write it in Your Own Words, Purdue University
• How to Paraphrase Without Plagiarizing, Colorado State University