American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, or contribute to the
discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A fact from American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 March 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that, in the cases of Klayman v. Obama and ACLU v. Clapper, US district courts issued conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of bulk data collection by the US government?
This article contains material taken near-verbatim from
this source and possibly others under a license incompatible with Wikipedia. It also contains material copied from another Wikipedia article without proper attribution, per
WP:CWW.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
15:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Looking at this source, there is legitimate reason for complaint:
"Ruling that the government’s global telephone data-gathering system is needed to thwart potential terrorist attacks, and that it can only work if everyone’s calls are swept in, a federal judge in New York City ruled Friday that Congress legally set up the program and that it does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights.vs.Judge Pauley said that the U.S. government's global telephone data-gathering system is needed to thwart potential terrorist attacks, and that it can only work if everyone's calls are swept in.
The judge also concluded that the telephone data being swept up by NSA did not belong to telephone users, but to the telephone companies.vs.He found that there was no violation of a constitutional right to privacy in the NSA program, and concluded that the telephone data being swept up by NSA did not belong to telephone users, but to the telephone companies.
And further he ruled that, when NSA obtains such data from the telephone companies, and then probes into it to find links between callers and potential terrorists, this further use of the data was not a search under the Fourth Amendment.vs.He ruled that, when NSA obtains such data from the telephone companies, and then probes into it to find links between callers and potential terrorists, this further use of the data was not even a search under the Fourth Amendment.
The small extent of the copying should be within the realm of Fair Use (a belief evidenced by my willingness to quote this text above) but definitely it fails Wikipedia policy - though I've not received any suggestion to crack down in QPQ reviewing DYKs when noticing paraphrasing not all that much less.[1] It has been my perception that Wikipedia is more concerned with copyright per se than imposing a teacher's strict interpretation of plagiarism. And most of the rest of the text is direct quotes; I tried four of the biggest sections and didn't get a direct match. My hope is that some quick and limited editing can clear this pall from the article.
Wnt (
talk)
19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)reply
In furtherance of this, I have just redone the entire article from end to end to be sure, and so have removed the paraphrasing tag.
[2]Wnt (
talk)
20:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)reply