Talk:Comparison of anti-plagiarism software

Possible addition: Earwig's Copyvio Detector

Someone may wish to research and add the following: Earwig's Copyvio Detector. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of anti-plagiarism software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150425070226/http://etest.vbi.vt.edu/etblast3/ to http://etest.vbi.vt.edu/etblast3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Grammarly

I use Grammarly sometimes, and I'm pretty sure this "list" has got this wrong wrong: Its plagiarism detection service isn't freeware, it's only available for those who buy a Pro subscription or something... --إلياس الجزائري^Elias 19:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You're totally right. I tried it but it is gave the result saying that there is no duplication, while the text was a copy of an other website.--Support Wikipedia, support free sharing of knowledge 15:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Plagtracker doesn't work

Hi!

I've tried this software but it can't give result. Is it the same for you?--Support Wikipedia, support free sharing of knowledge 15:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BamLifa (talk • contribs)

Urkund

It would be good to create an article for Urkund (https://www.urkund.com), so that it can be included in this table. Urkund has been (relatively) highly rated in independent testing. —DIV (120.18.117.249 (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC))

If you think it is notable and you can produce reliable sources, then why don't you do it? -- Alexf^(talk) 10:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Good question. Because I do not want to create an account, and when I started on WP, it wasn't possible create a new article without logging in. It occurs to me now that this might have changed in the meanwhile.... —DIV (120.17.194.221 (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC))

Yes, I did have a hazy memory that someone had told me there was a change. Now anyone can create a 'draft' of an article, for approval. However I have just had a go at the Wizard, and dislike it.

Secondly, I'm both busy and lazy.

Thirdly, I reckon my time is better spend enhancing others' contributions, rather than adding basic material myself.

It's not from a lack of boldness, but thanks for the encouragement :-)

—DIV (120.17.194.221 (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC))

Oh, and because I don't trust the review process. Too much risk of dedicating my time to create a draft that is subsequently rejected. —DIV (120.17.194.221 (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC))

References