用户:Antigng/paraphrase

本文存在多次使用的特定词汇，为防止出现断句问题，本文会使用专名号以助区分并协助阅读。请读者留意！

改述（英语：paraphrasing），是一种更改原文句子的表述方式，但将原文句子所要表达的含义原封不动呈现给读者的写作技巧。这种写作技巧被广泛地应用于学术界，用于避免自己的学术著作构成抄袭或侵犯他人版权。如果改述技巧不熟练，会造成改述与原文并无实质差别，而只是单纯表面性地更改后，再加入条目中，这种情况被称之为“近似改述”（closing paraphrasing）。如何避免近似改述的最好方法，就是应使用自己的文字来重新表述或概括原文内容，并依照内容方针添加注脚表明原文来源。

如果只要列明来源、材料在文本中明确归因列明来源。那么，在合理范围内进行有限度的近似改述是适当的。如果欲表达之概念，只能通过使用仅有且类似的表达方式所传递，那么有限的近似改述也是应允的。

没有文本归属的改述行为可能会构成抄袭；且

Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's 版权政策，which forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying material directly from other sources. 公有领域 material must likewise be attributed to avoid plagiarism. If the source material bears a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses, 如果标示了来源，那么复制或改述行为就不能构成违反版权。 or closely paraphrasing it is not a copyright violation so long as the source is attributed somewhere in the article, usually at the end.

最好的规避近似改述的方法是：了解其成因；了解如何避免其产生；以及产生时，了解如何应对与解决。

法律中的主要概念

复制不是侵犯版权或抄袭的唯一方式，近似改述亦是一种违反行为。

关于使用类似改述的行为，存在相关法律规定、道德准则、和机构标准的考量因素。其中，最直接影响改述方式的，就是版权法。维基百科涉及的最基本的事务为版权条例的约束。于某些国家，类似改述行为亦会被视为：对作品原作者的扭曲或破坏作品的行为；且违反原作者于精神权利。

表述方式

版权并不限制知识及事实本身，但限制它们的表达方式。所以表述文段应尽可能简洁，以避免应用到基本事实以外的文字，是而侵犯到版权。

例子

在美国之音的一篇文章中，有这样一段描述：

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”的人如同猫一样悄悄溜进了总统的包厢。

如在不考虑该来源是否可靠或来源是否受版权法保护的情况下，想要在亚伯拉罕·林肯条目中使用来源所描述的内容，在条目内就应该写下：

1864年4月14日晚上，林肯夫妇前往福特剧院观赏歌剧《我们美国的表兄弟》。观赏期间，一个名为“约翰·韦尔斯·布斯”的人士潜入林肯所在的包厢。

因为事实不受版权法保护，所以单纯描述事实的句子可以使用。但文字如“地球生命史”则可能会侵犯版权。而“如同猫一样”之类的明喻则运用了修辞手法，展现了语言创造力，所以会受到版权的保护。比如将：

⋯⋯如同猫一样悄悄溜进了总统的包厢。

改成

⋯⋯就像猫一样蹑手蹑脚地溜进了总统的包厢。

这种表面粗略地改述并不会，即使与文中使用的这些词语完全不同，但可能会侵犯版权，因其取用程度已多于单纯对事实的表述这一范围。

判断相关语句是否侵权当然也存在其他要素，例如：实质取用程度。

实质相似度

实质相似度（substantial similarity；或实质取用程度），是指“对原创性文段的拷贝程度”。

美国版权局阐明道：“版权法并不保证名字、标题、短语，或简短的表述内容⋯⋯版权局不能为简单的文字组合进行专有权版权登记⋯⋯为保证版权，作品必须包含有最低限度的原作者信息⋯⋯仅仅标注名字、标题，以及其他短语并不能达到这些（违反版权的）要求。”但如若某个来源的组合、筛选或排列名称、标题、短语，或表达据有创造性；则过于类似的内容就可能会侵犯版权。

如若来源与条目存在实质相似性，则改述行为可能会造成侵权。

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".

于美国版权法，然而实质相似度并非一直皆为侵权的指标。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.

精神权利

主页面：Wikipedia:精神权利

维基百科现时并没有关于著作者精神权利的官方政策。

著作者的精神权利是独立于作者版权的另一个权利。精神权利与版权一致；其只能应用于表达形式上，而不能适用于单纯的事实或真理本身。

精神权利包括了原作者：

1. 对一次创作的控制权；
2. 署名权或匿名权；
3. 对一次创作作品的不可歪曲或损毁的权利。

与版权一致，精神权利只能应用于表达方式，而不适用于纯事实。对于精神权利的尊重，可以保证维基百科的内容能够被尽可能的广泛应用。且为与“可供查证”方针保持一致，维基百科编辑者不应使用未出版的作品（但于公共资源中未出版内容不适用）。

而于出版物，编者需要注明每一个来源中的作者；若无作者，则应注明来源的出版社。

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

翻译

因为翻译文字或语句替换成相应的中文文字或语句，所以外语翻译实质上是改述的其中一种形式。

翻译行为会依据其由外语文献中所展示之表达形式的实质取用程度，而决定其是否会被准许。如同上面所述，除单纯的事实或真理外，所有照搬句子表述的行为都是不允许的。

例如，以下两个由英文翻译之文段：

1. “伊斯坦布尔是一个大城市。”
2. “太阳如同红色的图腾一般，为地球带来光芒。”

第一个例子仅为简单的事实陈述，所以理应被准许使用。

第二个例子带有比喻元素的“隐约透过”和“如同红色的预兆一般”；所以，尽管使用了与原作完全不同的中文语句来表述，但亦是不可接受的。但是，即使只是传达事实陈述，翻译得越多、翻译得越贴近，就越可能产生版权问题。

筛选与整理

虽然事实不受版权保障，但对于事实的筛选之行为可能会被认为具有原创性，因而受到版权保护。

例如：美国列出的州份名称排列顺序是按字母顺序、面积大小还是人口总数，这些皆不受版权保障。然而，若存在一份较短的、经过筛选的美国州份名单，而其依然依如前所述之方式排列（即名称、大小和人口依次排列），但其多出一项“最适合居住的州份”之元素的情况下；那么就会因为其筛选及排版的原创性，而受版权保障。

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.

维基百科的规定

即使作品是——

1. 于公有领域中；或者
2. 使用自由使用协定授权给他人使用，

而且——

1. 已经标注改述文段的原文来源，

但其依然可能触犯维基百科内容指引——抄袭。在维基百科中，“近似地改述不受版权保障的原文内容”与“侵犯具有版权的作品”并无不同。

准许近似改述的情况

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.

公共领域或兼容许可的内容

于个别的情况下，允许于文中进行类似之概述。例如：

(a) 条目内容是（或，曾是）在1911年Encyclopaedia Britannica（详见1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica）的基础之上所建立的；或

(b) 来源文献属于公有领域（如美国政府文件）；或

(c) 依据CC-BY-SA和GFDL条款授权。

于上述案例的情况下，方可进行近似改述。

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).

对于有偿版权文本的引述

就如同一系列非自由版权方针和指引所论述的那样，维基百科允许有限度地引述非自由版权文本，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.

当来源中的确切词语与文章相关时，非自由来源的报价可能是适当的，而不仅仅是来源提供的事实或想法。 例子可能包括文章中讨论的人所作的陈述; 摘自文章中描述的诗歌，歌曲或书籍; 或者关于文章主题的重要意见。 但是，报价不应被视为提取事实和用简明语言提出事实的替代方法。由此：

• 正确 - 孙中山先生说：“革命尚未成功，同志们仍需努力。”
• 正确 - 《明报》的评论家声称该电影“做作且无聊”。
• 错误 - 根据《保加利亚的蝴蝶》这本书的记载道：“只要耐心观察，就有可能会足够幸运地瞥见这种稀有的飞蛾沿着树林溪流旁，布满青苔的溪畔边纷飞起舞。”

叙述相同内容的方法会受局限的情况

如果欲表达的概念，只能通过使用仅有且类似的表达方式所传达，那么有限类似之改述也是应允的。此即为何无需规避使用关于科技的用语；亦可能是为何适用于单纯的真理或事实称述。

人物名字、称谓、组织、书籍、或电影等等，各项内容可以复制。因为名字、标题不存在表述原创性；而这些亦经常是唯一可以定义描述对象的方式。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.

范例

于此范例中，维基百科条目内容试图改述来源内容。但是，几乎所有的文字、排序、句式都是保留原有形式。

来源文段

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.
  • 细微变动（例如：“在其之中”--> “是其中一个”；“已占据”-->“目前正在占据”）并不足以符合改述原有文段的基本条件。

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

如何避免接近之改述

为避免接近之改述，编者不应当在没有深入了解来源和条目主题的情况下，边读来源边写条目——如此则很容易受到来源行文方式的左右，而有意无意写出接近之改述的内容。相反，编者应当在通读来源、了解条目主题的基础上，根据来源介绍的条目主题的关键信息，以自己的文字草拟条目。

记笔记

很多时候，关于条目主题的信息过于繁杂，以至于仅凭通读来源后的记忆无法准确复原关键信息。另一方面，又要避免受到来源文本的影响而写出接近之改述的内容。记笔记是解决上述矛盾的一个好方法：“记笔记-整理笔记-阅读笔记”这一中间步骤，可以将“阅读来源的文本”与“草拟条目的文本”两个过程有效地“隔离”，从而在不丢失关键信息的情况下避免两者的相互影响。具体而言，编者可以：

• 从来源中提炼出具有百科全书性、适合条目内容的关键信息，并以笔记的形式记录之；
• 将来源记录在案，以备后续参考与引用；
• 参阅多方来源，以获取关于条目主题更为全面、更为中立，且更少依赖单一来源的信息；
• 若来源中存在强有力的论点可供条目内文引用，亦可将该等论点记录下来以备使用。但应节制，以避免出现过度引用而违反合理使用方针。

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.

预览

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:完美条目

改述文段的考证与处理

考证

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. 于同一贡献者书写的内容中，搜寻语气、词汇或风格的前后脱节或突然转变。
   • 例如：“猫是一种掠食性的小型食肉类动物。家猫喜欢杀死老鼠和蝙蝠。” 例中可见：前句十分正规，但后句突然变得通俗化；前后语气及风格明显脱节。由此判断，该句子可能进行过改述，甚至于侵权性的复制。
2. 搜寻冗余内容，这可能表明编者改述了两个或两个以上的参考来源。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.

处理方法

处理方法可能会根据问题的严重程度，而有所不同。以下是管理类似之改述的问题的几种方式。

标注问题

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.

处理其他类型编辑者的办法

注意：这些示例中的所有文本均由作者释权至公共领域！

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.

极多问题

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. --~~~~

有限问题

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 [[条目名]] 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. --~~~~

有关的方针与指引

有些维基百科方针与指引亦与本论述有相关性：

• 维基百科:非原创研究：方针 stating that, while articles should be written in your own words, they should substantially retain the meaning of the source material
• 维基百科:版权信息：方针 that describes general principles that apply to use of copyrighted work
• 维基百科:侵犯著作权：方针 that describes copyright violations and how to address them.
• 维基百科:非自由内容使用准则：定义了使用非免费内容的限制的维基百科方针；
• 维基百科:合理使用：延伸了非自由内容使用准则的维基百科指引and describes when non-free material may be used under the "fair use" principle
• 维基百科:抄袭：描述了即使来源可能不受版权保护亦要列明来源的重要性的维基百科指引；
• 维基百科:列明来源：描述了维基百科条目内容须能由可靠来源验证，而内容添加者有列明来源的义务的维基百科指引；

Several Wikipedia articles discuss related topics such as Copyright law of the United States, fair use, plagiarism, 精神权利 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.

其他相关

• 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.

外部链接

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