Plagiarism on Knol

1. Knol's spam guard: the user

Although, since its inception, Google has had safeguards in place to prevent this scenario, they have had limited effectiveness because of the need for human monitoring of new content -- either on the part of Google employees or on the part of Knol authors and readers. 

Since the project's inception, Google's monitoring of Knol content has been a hands-off affair with minimal oversight of submitted content leading to the current state in which a large database of spam articles has built up. 

This leaves users of the service to fend for themselves when it comes to protecting Knol from spammers.  In this regard, end-users have been both helped and hindered by Knol's protections against spam.

2. Spam & "Flag inappropriate content"

By clicking on the Flag inappropriate content link which exists in the right hand panel of every Knol article, Knol users are able to report spam and other objectionable content to Google just as they might on Craigslist or many other social sites.  Having browsed around Knol for a while, I have witnessed spam articles flagged by users and removed by Google - so it's clear that this sytem works.  However, as the next example illustrates, when it comes to Google's flagging feature, there is a significant distinction between spam -- defined as inappropriate marketing -- and the practice of plagiarism which I would consider equally, if not more, problematic.

3. The NASA wiki

Consider, as Exhibit A, the following knols, which bear remarkable similarity to the Wikipedia article on NASA:

http://knol.google.com/k/darkwood-adrenalin/nasa/27bzio9crr17o/3#

http://knol.google.com/k/pramod-kumar/nasa/376d0pmz95tub/14#

Although my intention is not to single out individual authors for derision, the comments on these articles already indicate that their unattributed borrowing from Wikipedia has not gone unnoticed.

In the next sections I would like to point out why I think this is a problem and what Google Knol can do to combat this phenomenon. What I also want to make clear, however, is that I am not arguing for a return to the world of traditional Copyright - in the sense of "All Rights Reserved" - although all Knol authors have the ability to mark their work "All Rights Reserved" - as I have done with this Knol. What I am arguing instead, is that whatever copyright an author has chosen for his work should be respected and that any system like Knol that deals with content creation should have an adequate system in place to allow for an author's copyright/copyleft to be enforced. First let's consider Copyleft and what it means.

4. Remix and the Creative Commons

Lawrence Lessig has written extensively on the subject of digital copyright and has pointed out the importance of "Remix" a term which started out in the context of songs being modified by different DJs, but which in Lessig's terminology refers to taking cultural artifacts created by someone and spinning them into something entirely new through modification. Lessig gave a talk at Ted on the subject which you may be as inspired by as I was:



The Creative Commons organization, of which Lessig is a founder, has also created a very instructive video on the subject of the Creative Commons license, which allows authors to designate their work as being "remixable" since, by default, every content creator owns a copyright to their work once they have created it. This video is an excellent illustration of their case, using the example of some music by the White Stripes which inspired a remix of its own.



This phenomenon of Remix adds to the richness of culture by layering multiple creative perspectives. Indeed the phenomenon of Remix is evident in numerous articles on Google Knol, such as this tutorial knol which takes Youtube content created by the websites railscasts.com and tekniqal.com and, combining them, the Knol author presents his own perspective on their content. Whether the creators of those videos are aware of this new creation or whether they would approve of the new creation is not clear in this case but, by force of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Youtube is required to give content authors a method of appeal and, in the case of Youtube, most reports indicate that they have been extremely accomodating to content owners through their Copyright Infringement Notification appeal form. The challenge lies in striking a balance between protecting copyright and allowing for "Remix". In the case of Wikipedia, as I will explore in a moment, individual authors have control over the content that they supply to Wikipedia. However, "Remix" is also permitted if certain guidelines are followed.

5. The Misunderstood Wikipedia Copyright

Although Wikipedia uses the GNU Free Documentation License by default on all submissions, this does not mean that the content on the site is free for people to copy.  The license allows others to build upon Wikipedia content on condition that they provide attribution to Wikipedia -- a practice that is not followed on the Knol listed above. The full legal implications of the GFDL are outside the scope of this document but Wikimedia's guidelines are fairly clear in their discussion at the following link:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia

The relevant section of the document states:

Re-users are free to make derivative works and copy, distribute, display, and perform the work, even commercially. To comply, (a) release your version under the GFDL, (b) credit at least the five most substantial authors or content creators and (c) include a complete copy of the GFDL. In the case of derivative works you must also include the complete history section.

6. "Similar Content On The Web"

Coming back to the offending Knols discussed earlier, in the right hand panel of the Knol, Google's feature Similar content on the Web indicates when Google is able to identify a similarity between the content of the Knol and other content on the web. This feature is often quite successful in identifying offending Knols but they require user intervention before taking the final step of removing the content because the feature is not foolproof - in some cases the author of the Knol has legitimately published the Knol in two places.

7.  Plagiarism & "Flag inappropriate content"

After clicking on "Flag inappropriate content", you may notice that copyright infringement notifications are absent from the list of options that you can conveniently submit to Google on the following page. 



That is, unless you happen to notice the notation close to the footer of the page which reads as follows:

If you believe this content infringes upon your copyright, please see our instructions for notification of copyright infringement.

The instructions explain that the copyright holder must contact Google in writing rather than through e-mail or any other digital means, significantly complicating the process of reporting these types of violations.

Deciding that I didn't have time to get in touch with all of the contributors to plagiarized Wikipedia pages to ask them to contact Google in writing about a violation of their copyright, I decided to Flag inappropriate content and choose the Other option, which provides a text box where I could enter a note about the violation of the Wikipedia license by the Knol. In the absence of a response, I decided to write this Knol in the hope that other users will call on Google to act.

8.  The need for action

Failing to act decisively against plagiarism of web content is a disservice both to the creators of that content as well as to the users of Google Knol. Every plagiarized article that appears on Google Knol dilutes the authority of everyone's work that is published here.

9. Knol Action Petition

Please submit the URL of a plagiarized Knol that has not been acted on by Google following the submission of a flagging complaint.