Talk:Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/WD claim investigation
Possible Copyright Infrigement Investigation Report
[edit]- Concerns: Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
- Investigated URL(s): http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/adult_adhd/treatments.htm
- Status:
Resolved
- Date Concluded: 27 May 2009
- Conclusion: No infrigement from Wikipedia editors.
Summary Finding of Facts
[edit]On 27 May 2009, a report indicated that this present page, subsections Treatment and Medication, might have been a copy off wrongdiagnosis.com (WD). Following an in-depth investigation in the context of the Wikiproject Copyright Cleanup, the following conclusions have been reached:
- Infringement of the WD content by Wikipedia editor is extremely implausible.
- Infringement of the Wikipedia content by WD is highly plausible.
Note that WD was, at the time of this investigation, missing any GFDL attribution notice towards the wikipedia article Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Evidence
[edit]The beginning of the WD page under examination reads:
The following language was introduced by User:CVZ in this diff, on 4 Feb 2009:
On 5 Feb 2009, User:Curious1i added one referenced sentence to CVZ's second paragraph quoted above, which now reads:
On 10 February 2009 (diff), User:CVZ refactored these two paragraphs, which now read:
This new paragraph, inculding the addition from User:Curious1i, is also present in the WD text, but much further down, in what would be Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Medication on Wikipedia. On 30 April 2009(diff), User:Litteraturegeek removed the paragraph starting with "in adults" from Wikipedia. Finally, in what is the Medication section on Wikipedia, User:Jmh649 created the following language, fully referenced, on 21 November 2008, 4 months before the other above mentionned users would perform the alleged copy:
One can find the same language on WD:
That same section had been refactored by User:CVZ in his overhaul on February 4, 2009 to read:
Based upon the examination of these two sections, my observations are:
- It is highly unlikely that several wikipedia editors would have lifted different portions of text from the exact same source, which is quoted nowhere in the wikipedia article, over a 4 month intervall.
- Editors proficient enough with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and verifiability to know that key sections must be referenced or be challenged for removal are highly unlikely to have gone through the extremes of finding 3rd-party sources independent of WD, in particular from peer-reviewed journals as is the case for the methylphenidate section.
- The presence of the specifier (Ritalin) on methylphenidate in WD, User:Jmh649 had it in a different place, and User:CVZ removed it altogether. No mention of Dexedrine has ever existed on Wikipedia.
- Under the scenario that User:CVZ would have lifted contents off WD, the addition of Mindfulness (with independent sourcing) by User:Curiouser1i on the following day, completely out of place compared to the WD version, is extremely improbably
- Under that same hypothesis, putting that Mindfulness sentence together with the corresponding paragraph found on WD but positioning the complete paragraph at a much earlier point of the article on February 10th is also highly implausible.
--MLauba (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Godfrey J (2008). "Safety of therapeutic methylphenidate in adults: a systematic review of the evidence". J. Psychopharmacol. (Oxford). doi:10.1177/0269881108089809. PMID 18515459.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ Godfrey J (2008). "Safety of therapeutic methylphenidate in adults: a systematic review of the evidence". J. Psychopharmacol. (Oxford). doi:10.1177/0269881108089809. PMID 18515459.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)