When we do copyright cleanup on Wikipedia, inevitably, we encounter websites that lift paragraphs from Wikipedia without following the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. Certainly, it doesn't make sense to pursue them all, and our time is way better spent working on articles, rather than DMCA takedown notices to obscure websites. But what if the person doing the violation publishes their infringing work in a journal, the references we rely on? It would be nice to live in a world where every source, journal, article, was thoroughly checked, and citogenesis never happened. But however rare or common it may be, it does happen, and we will have to deal with it.

Scientists are increasingly relying on Wikipedia to do their research.^[1] When combined with subpar peer review done by subpar journals,^[2] the chances of encountering a {{backwards copy}}, while using Earwig or CopyPatrol are, unfortunately, not zero. While Wikipedia does, allegedly, present the GENERAL DISCLAIMER to everyone, warning readers that anyone can fill the site with errors, the disclaimer will never be present on a copyright infringing paper. Wikipedia has real-world consequences, and we may be tasked with at least a moral obligation to stop the consequences of papers copying Wikipedia.

Theoretically, iThenticate, the Turnitin service that powers CopyPatrol, should catch most plagiarized papers before they get published. However, predatory publishers and bugs mean that sometimes copied papers make it through. Should you encounter a paper copying Wikipedia, there are a few steps you can take.

PubPeer currently does not allow comments alleging copyright infringement, according to their FAQ.^[3] It's not even clear how PubPeer would go about privately notifying Wikipedia contributors that an infringement may have occurred, which may allow some infringing papers to languish for years, unchecked.

If you are new to editing Wikipedia, we recommend thoroughly reading Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and other copyright information pages, like Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources before proceeding. Please also read the documentation for {{backwards copy}}.

• Go to https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ or https://dupdet.toolforge.org/ to compare the infringing text with the Wikipedia article.
• Download the Who Wrote That? extension for your web browser.
• Activate Who Wrote That on the article in question. Start clicking on the infringing text to verify the dates of each diff.
• Open up the article's talk page, and start notifying non-IP users, and, if possible, link to evidence comparing the violation.

For non-contributors, the steps you can take end here. According to 17 U.S.C., non-contributors to the article are not allowed to initiate actions on copyright infringement.^[4] However, if you are a significant contributor, you may read on.
(Reminder: The following is not legal advice.)

• Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks details the steps you can take to notify the infringing party. The first few letters are not legally binding, but they may be useful if you believe the infringement will be handled in good faith.
• If you decide to take action, please make sure to add a section in mirrors and forks to notify other contributors, if you are not the only one infringed.
• If nothing happens, you may decide to send a DMCA. Please note that DMCAs cannot be sent anonymously.

DMCA requests do not have to be sent to the infringing party. To reduce copyright liability on ISPs and other providers, DMCA also allows requests to be sent to other entities, like search engines.

• Once you've taken action, you may also wish to notify through normal means, other interested groups, like PubPeer, of your actions, to allow them to keep track of these problems.

• Somewhat like PubPeer, redacted versions of DMCA complaints, made to entities like Google, are publically viewable in the Lumen Database. The project is headed by the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard.^[5] They also publish useful copyright information under "topics", and list useful research too.
• Share-alike licenses must be distributed under the same license. Although CC-BY is "compatible" with CC-BY-SA, that compatibility is one way, so you couldn't, for instance, incorporate a CC-BY-SA work and license it CC-BY. That would infringe copyright.
• The DMCA can be seen as the most powerful form of retraction. Whereas a normal retraction can take months or years depending on media and editor interest, DMCA takedowns are instantaneous by comparison and can involve more parties, once again emphasizing why readers should never plagiarize sources. With that said, the power of the DMCA also means it has a powerful counterbalance, and you may have to go to court to enforce this retraction should this counterbalance be acted upon.
• Yes, the DMCA has had a bad rap.^[6] If you have been infringed, your decision to use the DMCA in an attempt to improve the integrity and public perception of science, is ultimately up to you.

These articles have had published backwards copies, and may need additional checks in the future:

• Enzyme

• Wikipedia:Who Wrote That?
• Wikipedia:General disclaimer
• Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup