8
$\begingroup$

So I was sifting through some tag descriptions and realized it would be far easier to fill in some that are blank just by copying a bit of the Wikipedia article on the topic into the tag.

Is this fine or frowned upon? We could certainly attribute and link to the page from which the content was pulled.

For a more concrete example I was looking at

I was thinking of copying in: A calendar is a system of organising days for social, religious, commercial or administrative purposes. This is done by giving names to periods of time, typically days, weeks, months and years. (I would probably expand this to include content on time.)

this is from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar

So, good idea or bad idea?

$\endgroup$
1
6
$\begingroup$

Including background information, with attribution, in the full description is fine. (Without attribution it's technically plagiarism, so be sure not to do that!) There are two reasons not to do it in the excerpt (the short description):

  1. The main purpose of a tag wiki is to explain what this tag means on this site. That can be different from, or more specific than, what the term means in the wild. For example, consider , which has the description:

    For questions about living things. Does not exclude aliens, but additional information is usually necessary (consider using "xenobiology" instead).

  2. Markdown isn't available in the excerpts and they're intentionally short, so citing that source would be cumbersome anyway.

$\endgroup$
-5
$\begingroup$

I would include the link in the full description. It's useful in general. The excerpt is understood as not being complete, so it doesn’t need attributions, if it’s indeed excerpted from the main description.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .