 Oh hoi hoi. So I've done a video on SCP 173 probably six or seven times at this point. And the reason behind that is it's incredibly popular SCP and right now of course one of my SCP 173 videos is blowing up again. It's already got almost three quarters of a million views and it's earning more as always. I don't have a problem with that but I thought I would take advantage of the renewed interest and talk a little bit about how there is a double standard on the SCP wiki when it comes to plagiarism. Was that got to do with SCP 173? Let's find out. So first we probably need to talk about what plagiarism is. Plagiarism is presenting a creative work as though it were an original creation of your own when it isn't. This can also extend sometimes to through inaction allowing others to believe that it is a creative work that you originated. So how does that apply to SCP 173? Well SCP 173's text is inspired by weeping angels. I'm not going to pretend anymore like the SCP wiki does as part of the double standard. I'm not going to pretend anymore that the SCP 173 wasn't inspired by the weeping angels. The dates match up too well. It was literally created like a week or two weeks after the weeping angels premiere. Now the idea is open for anybody. A statue that moves when you're not looking at it is an old old concept. So it's not the text that's really the problem. However because of its mythic nature on the SCP wiki you're going to find plenty of people who will claim without evidence that it was created before that time period. I remember it being around in August or no I'm sorry April of that year. So there's no way by June when the weeping angels episode came out that it wasn't already in existence. It wasn't. None of that's true. It was the earliest version and maybe I'm wrong. I'll put that out there. Maybe everything I found on the internet and every single bit of research I've done and a bunch of other people have done to find the original posting which says that it's like after weeping angels but only a couple weeks which means the proximity is too close for them not to be related I would personally say. Regardless maybe I'm wrong maybe it existed before that. I don't think so but I'm open to the possibility that all of the research I've done is completely incorrect or incomplete regardless. That's not the issue here. The issue is untitled 2004 and I would show an image of it right now but I can't because it's a stolen image that only limited reproduction rights were granted to the wiki for and since this is a commercial work I can't put the image of SCP 173 in my videos and therein lies the problem and we're going to compare SCP 173's plagiarism. An image plagiarism is plagiarism plain and simple it's no different than literary plagiarism and by the way plagiarism and copyright are not the same thing I've harped on this a couple of times in previous videos but something can be okay by copyright law and still be plagiarism. Plagiarism is a moral crime for lack of a better way to put it and in a lot of cases isn't a crime at all it's just something that is severely frowned upon in the creative community of any creative community really. However creative communities tend to only value their own types of work so when you put a stolen image up on an article they don't think to themselves that's plagiarism they just think oh well we need to fix that actually not only until very very recently is that true in fact the current images policy which has reduced our total load of unlicensed images to something like 30 I think at most maybe even less than that was a system that I created and then left before any of the hard work had to be done so a bunch of other people actually took up the mantle after I left and it works making people source their images super easy barely an inconvenience watching a lot of screen ran right lately see I made a reference and a quote and then I said where it came from anyway point is that the image on scp 173 is straight up stolen okay and after the fact and by the way the artist had to get into contact with us at the scp wiki in order to get this to in order to get this taken care of but but let's just move on for a second and talk about the fact that let's talk about the double standard okay one of the easiest articles to use as a reference is something called the moots or mutes and the reason why it's a good to use as a reference is because it contains both type of plagiarism no one assumed that the mutes images were original it was a very popular series to skip and not a single person thought that the images in that article were original and yet they were okay with it until they realized where it was actually from once they looked it up and found that it was from an etsy page they're like okay so this is who it is we would need to contact to get in charge wait a second and they looked at the listing and found that part of the etsy listing the written part of it had been stolen because part of it was framed as you know a whimsy or whatever whimsical story that was included as a listing underneath the dolls that were being sold had been lifted and put into the article and once they knew that literary plagiarism had happened the article became unacceptable now uh our solution and i say are because i was involved in uh this solution at the time was to contact what i can sit well my personal opinion was we needed to contact the aggrieved party and find out what she wanted to do uh and her solution was to just make sure that there was a link to one of her products you know the scp wiki benefited from having this up for years so why not let her benefit a little bit from having a link from the wiki where a lot of people are reading this thing that she wrote to her own works so we did we created a uh work around solution much like the one on scp 173 and that was that however recently and by the way i don't necessarily think that was the right thing to do now that i've had time to really consider it i think asking because this is you know one of those things is like hey we've stolen from you i personally my viewpoint was hey we've stolen from you we have caused you harm how would you like us to handle it we should have taken it down first and then contacted her to let her know that the problem was a problem although i'd say that the scp wiki would be very much against the idea of contacting people who had their shit stolen because if we contacted everybody who had their stuff stolen we would get sued on the scp wiki i don't know i'm using a we i'm not really part of the wiki anymore anyway so once literary plagiarism was identified that was the end of the article in the end recently um they took a hardest line stance on this sort of stuff and they finally got rid of it completely wiped it out and because of that new policy change on how they deal with plagiarism and a hard line stance that no plagiarism is acceptable on the wiki it doesn't matter if you get permission for it it still has to go recently they've come up with a new policy with regards to scp 173 and i am sorry to say absolutely nothing is going to change of course if you thought i was leading up to the idea that scp 173 was going to get taken down because it's plagiarized you you don't understand how the wiki works it is a group of people who do it is not some official it's it's to be fair a lot of big organizations have this exact same problem the scp wiki is definitely one of them uh where it's just an organization of people with various opinions and their opinion is the scp 173 is somehow the cornerstone of the wiki and if we get rid of it well a wrap fucking like scp 173 is somehow it like like there aren't thousands of other scps if we pull scp 173 out because it was stolen what what can we do and anyway the new policy has been that they get rid of the old images i've actually really changed and hardened my stance on this because this is like i said the images policy where you pull the old images out and put new ones in or just pull them out and leave them out uh is something that i personally i personally set up the basics of the current policy i think it maybe has changed a little bit since then and like i said i didn't have to do any of the hard work in enforcing it so i wouldn't give myself too much credit on that count but regardless i think i've hardened a little bit on this stance because i mean what is the difference between stealing an image and stealing text both are creative works art what are artists not somehow creative people or photographers don't have to spend time and effort to create photography like these people don't deserve to have their work respected the same way i don't know like i said i've changed a little bit on this and i've hardened a little bit on my uh my position i think i think these older things that have been straight up plagiarized and when i say plagiarized i mean it because we're talking about articles where people posted up the images and sure even if 90 of the people that read the article just a sin this is not probably true it's probably not much less than 90 but even if 90 of the people who read an article think that the image is an original to the creator and was just lifted off the internet somewhere and and slotted in that 10 is important credit is important and it doesn't matter if it's scp 173 or scp 5 4 i'm not going to give an actual number because i don't know i don't know first of all i could be listed something that is explicitly the same problem it would be very ironic if i listed something new that was exactly the same problem but it doesn't matter if it's scp 173 which is rated to like 6 000 or something or some plus 20 article there's no difference in the wrongness of those things so many problems that they just they moved to fix and then but they won't move all the way they like we're taking a hard line stance against plagiarism on the scp wiki except for all the other plagiarism that we think is okay anyway i think maybe that got a little ranty there but it was important to say thank you very much for watching you enjoyed the video and you want to see more of this kind of content scroll down and hit the subscribe button or else there's pretty much nothing i can do about it that joke comes from the simpsons and then head on over to patreon.com forward slash d samaritan like everybody here on the screen already has including vivi and dr j redacted who both pledged $100 and morgan was pledged at $40 it's nice to know that i'm not alone out here and i will see you all again on tuesday