I have the habit of cut-and-pasting the content of suggested edits on tags, and tag wikis, into Google, especially if they are completely new content.
This proposed edit for
Das U-Boot is used in embedded devices to package the instructions to boot the device's operating system kernel. It is available for a number of computer architectures, including 68k, ARM, AVR32, Blackfin, MicroBlaze, MIPS, Nios, PPC and x86
if searched in full in Google, doesn't give a clear match in, but if you take only the first few words to search, you'll get the English wikipedia article as first hit, and although you don't see anything matching there, if you open the article, it starts with:
Das U-Boot (Universal Bootloader) is an open source, primary boot loader used in embedded devices to package the instructions to boot the device's operating system kernel. It is available for a number of computer architectures, including 68k, ARM, AVR32, Blackfin, MicroBlaze, MIPS, Nios, PPC and x86.
For me that is clearly copied content and AFAIK is never acceptable. The two other reviewers (one before, and one after me) approved this suggested edit.
Can we get the option to paste in a URL when we reject a suggested edit based on copied content? This would already directly help me to re-find the original page on which I based my judgement (which is, as I indicated above, not always an matter of easy cut-and-paste in Google and search).
And once that link can be pasted in there, can other reviewers see this, as it is easier to confirm a source someone copied from than to detect this yourself. Or alternatively, could the copied content with URL, be taken as a flag for others/mods to review?
A completely different matter is how now to follow up on this. IMO at least the original poster of the suggested edit should be warned not to copy content and certainly not without properly giving credits. I prefer to be able to flag the post, and have some others review that, and then have the system tell the poster that this is copied content. That is much better than me just, in my characteristic unsubtle way telling another user what to do and not WRT copied content. I would flag the post once more to get a moderators attention, but now that it is accepted, I would not know where to do so. Is there some place for this. There is also no feedback to the other reviewers, who might be oblivious to what is going on and on the next tag (wiki) review one more not bother with properly checking.
In this case it is content from wikipedia, and it probably suffices to just include a URL as the source. But in other cases it is not so easy and the content might have to be removed, which is not trivial as determining copied content is easier then writing an alternative. A more structural way to approach this would be appropriate, the only thing I can think of doing in such a case is pinging the mods in chat and explain things. I much rather have my review as 'copied content' be taken as a more serious judgement, more like a flag.