Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-34115-20180618163709/@comment-1207741-20180619230844

Paraphrasing, which I believe is what Dantman is advocating for, doesn't necessarily make a difference as far as copyright is concerned (paraphrasing of copyrighted material). It doesn't matter how you may rewrite or rearrange the information if the bulk or even entirety of it comes from the same place, as is the case for many jutsu articles.

What a copyright case would care more about is how much of a given work the wiki is using. A few years back I complied a list of wiki articles that resembled databook entries, seen here. At the time there were 15 entries from the first databook out of a potential 86 (17%), and 17 entries from the second out of a potential 108 (15%). Given the overall length of those databooks, that's not a huge number. But the third databook had 96 entries out of a potential 115 (83%). Which represents a far greater share of that databook potentially being infringed upon. I'll assume the number is not as high now as it was then, but I suspect it would still be a large figure.

The wiki's referencing does suck though. Even if there isn't a copyright concern, the wiki should be striving to make clear where information is coming from. Vague references in the infobox aren't enough, nor were they ever intended to be; the references in the infoboxes are only meant to cover information in the infoboxes.