Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Alleged Plagiarism In Chris Anderson's New Book

Posted by Soulskill on from the hyperlinks-don't-stick-to-dead-trees dept.

ScorpFromHell writes "Blogger Waldo Jaquith alleges in his blog that Chris Anderson, Wired magazine's editor-in-chief and writer of The Long Tail, has apparently plagiarized content from various sources without attribution for his soon-to-be-published book. 'In the course of reading Chris Anderson's new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, for a review in an upcoming issue of VQR, we have discovered almost a dozen passages that are reproduced nearly verbatim from uncredited sources. ... Most of the passages, but not all, come from Wikipedia.' When questioned about the similar passages, Anderson responded, "All those are my screwups after we decided not to run notes as planned, due to my inability to find a good citation format for web sources... As you'll note, these are mostly on the margins of the book's focus, mostly on historical asides, but that's no excuse. I should have had a better process to make sure the write-through covered all the text that was not directly sourced. I think what we'll do is publish those notes after all, online as they should have been to begin with.'"

138 comments

  1. first plagiarised post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Blogger Waldo Jaquith alleges in his blog that Chris Anderson, Wired magazine's editor-in-chief and writer of The Long Tail, has apparently plagiarized content from various sources without attribution for his soon-to-be-published book. 'In the course of reading Chris Anderson's new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, for a review in an upcoming issue of VQR, we have discovered almost a dozen passages that are reproduced nearly verbatim from uncredited sources. ... Most of the passages, but not all, come from Wikipedia.' When questioned about the similar passages, Anderson responded, "All those are my screwups after we decided not to run notes as planned, due to my inability to find a good citation format for web sources... As you'll note, these are mostly on the margins of the book's focus, mostly on historical asides, but that's no excuse. I should have had a better process to make sure the write-through covered all the text that was not directly sourced. I think what we'll do is publish those notes after all, online as they should have been to begin with.'

    1. Re:first plagiarised post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever...

  2. It's not plagiarism... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a "mashup"...

    1. Re:It's not plagiarism... by megamerican · · Score: 4, Funny

      Plagiarism is copying from one source. Research is copying from many.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    2. Re:It's not plagiarism... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a "mashup"...

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    3. Re:It's not plagiarism... by wild_quinine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plagiarism is copying from one source. Research is copying from many.

      Another snappy witticism on slashdot. But it's wrong. And not in a nitpicky killjoy technicality kind of a way, but just plain wrong. So inaccurate, that it's not funny is what I'm saying. Plagiarism is when you directly copy, or reinterpret with significant similiarity, the work of another without citing the original author. It's got squat to do with how many places you take from. And it's perfectly fine to build on the ideas of others - hell that's the foundation of academia - as long as you don't pass off that work as your own.

    4. Re:It's not plagiarism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Plagiarism is copying from one source. Research is copying from many.

      Another snappy witticism on slashdot. But it's wrong. And not in a nitpicky killjoy technicality kind of a way, but just plain wrong. So inaccurate, that it's not funny is what I'm saying. Plagiarism is when you directly copy, or reinterpret with significant similiarity, the work of another without citing the original author. It's got squat to do with how many places you take from. And it's perfectly fine to build on the ideas of others - hell that's the foundation of academia - as long as you don't pass off that work as your own.

    5. Re:It's not plagiarism... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2, Funny

      Plagiarism is copying from one source. Research is copying from many.

      Another snappy witticism on Slashdot, but it's wrong, and not in a nit-picky killjoy technicality kind of a way, but just plain wrong. It's so inaccurate that it's not funny is what I'm saying. Plagiarism is when you directly copy, or reinterpret with significant similarity, the work of another without citing the original author. It's got squat to do with how many places you take from. It's perfectly fine to build on the ideas of others - hell that's the foundation of academia - as long as you don't pass off that work as your own.

    6. Re:It's not plagiarism... by cenc · · Score: 1

      More accurately, it is representing another's SPECIFIC work or idea as your own.

      Only a slight variation from your point, but important clarification I believe. For example, If I give you permission to copy word for word something I wrote and to publish and use it without citing the source, there is no plagiarism.On the other hand, common knowledge within a particular circle (i.e. the readers will recognize the source) is also not plagiarism.

      Not trying to pick a fight, just clarifying.

      --
      Living in Chile
    7. Re:It's not plagiarism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I hereby cite Merriam-Webster:

      joke

      Pronunciation: \ËjÅk\
      Function: noun
      Etymology: Latin jocus; perhaps akin to Old High German gehan to say, Sanskrit yÄcati he asks
      Date: 1670

      1 a: something said or done to provoke laughter ; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1): the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2): an instance of jesting : kidding c: practical joke d: laughingstock
      2: something not to be taken seriously : a trifling matter â"often used in negative constructions

    8. Re:It's not plagiarism... by wild_quinine · · Score: 1

      If I give you permission to copy word for word something I wrote and to publish and use it without citing the source, there is no plagiarism.

      You raise an interesting point, but I think that even permitted reproduction of ideas would be considered plagiarism if it was done without actual citation. Remember, this isn't a copyright issue, it is related to giving credit. If you don't give credit then it may well constitue plagiarism even when done with permission.

      Plus, to steal a great quote without citation, "Who is The Journal Of Quantum Physics going to believe?"

    9. Re:It's not plagiarism... by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      Took me a second but now I wish I had a few more points to give you.

    10. Re:It's not plagiarism... by TheLink · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's still plagiarism even if it's allowed by the original author.

      For example if you were a researcher in some university, and the original author gave you permission to plagiarize and publish his work as yours, it's still plagiarism and it's still wrong, and you should still be punished.

      Students get in trouble if they get someone to take their exams for them.

      As long as there's misrepresentation going on, even if the original person gave permission for the misrepresentation, it's still a form of deception.

      It's pretty simple. The "warning bells should ring" whenever deception is involved.

      If the misrepresentation was unintentional then that's different, but then one should not be so careless either especially when creating works in certain fields.

      --
    11. Re:It's not plagiarism... by DevoidOfWindows · · Score: 1

      "Plagiarism is copying from one source. Research is copying from many." Ah, another snappy witticism on Slashdot. More accurately, plagiarism is representing another's specific work or idea as your own. Allow me to demonstrate. Now, if I give you permission to copy, word-for-word, something I wrote and to publish and use it without citing the source, there is no plagiarism. Right? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything; just clarifying. Anyway, I think that even permitted reproduction of ideas would be considered plagiarism if it was done without actual citation. And, clearly, it's perfectly fine to build on the ideas of others -- as we all know, that's the foundation of academia -- but only as long as you don't pass off that work as your own. If you don't give credit, then it may well constitue plagiarism, even when done with permission. Plus, to steal a great quote, without citation, "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" Well, I suppose you could always say that it's a "mashup"...

    12. Re:It's not plagiarism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example if you were a researcher in some university, and the original author gave you permission to plagiarize and publish his work as yours, it's still plagiarism and it's still wrong, and you should still be punished.

      That is in academic environment where a Student Handbook will clearly outline rules regarding plagarism and the submission of work not your own (or your team's work). In a commercial environment with ghost writers, editors, and acceptable pay-for-higher precedents, I think it is a different story. There may be areas where atribution is undesirable. A corp may want a single author for a manuel, not more and not less. Yet completing the manual accurately and on budget may require using a multitude of internal sources - perfectly OK. Maybe then "compiled and written by" is more suitable than "by".

    13. Re:It's not plagiarism... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Ghost writing? That's like doing a milli vanilli in my book ;).

      As for the many-internal-source manual in your example, they can just have the corp as the author[1], which would not be misrepresentation. Many manuals do not have a person's name on them as author.

      In many cases only a few authors/compilers would be doing much of the work - they'll talk to the internal sources and write stuff down.

      [1] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Inc.%20Cisco%20Systems

      --
    14. Re:It's not plagiarism... by winwar · · Score: 3, Informative

      As there is no "-1 Wrong" moderation, I'll respond instead:

      "It's still plagiarism even if it's allowed by the original author."

      You are wrong. It is called authorized copying. There may also be some legal issues if the author wasn't allowed to get permission.

      "Students get in trouble if they get someone to take their exams for them."

      This is called cheating. Not plagiarism.

      "As long as there's misrepresentation going on, even if the original person gave permission for the misrepresentation, it's still a form of deception."

      Deception is not plagiarism. It may be considered unethical but that does not make it plagiarism.

      "If the misrepresentation was unintentional then that's different..."

      It doesn't matter. Now the penalties, if any, may be lower.

    15. Re:It's not plagiarism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      important clarification I believe. For example, If I give you permission to copy word for word something I wrote and to publish and use it without citing the source, there is no plagiarism. Not trying to pick a fight, just clarifying.

      No, you're just being plain old web 1.0 WRONG, so shut the fuck up.

    16. Re:It's not plagiarism... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is in academic environment where a Student Handbook will clearly outline rules regarding plagarism and the submission of work not your own

      Plagiarism has no meaning outside of an academic institution. It's an academic offence, not a legal one[1]. That's why you can't sue someone for doing it.

      [1] It may be copyright infringement too - but in that case that's what the law would be interested in.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:It's not plagiarism... by hplus · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the OED, you are wrong. Here is how it defines plagiarism:
      the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

    18. Re:It's not plagiarism... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Plagiarism in many cases is a form of fraud. Fraud after all is deception for personal gain.

      It may not always be something you can take someone to court for (or prosecute) but I'm sure there are scenarios where you can sue someone for plagiarism.

      e.g. you gave someone money because he made it look like someone else's wonderful work was his. But after that you find the person is crap and not worth the $$$ you paid or are supposed to pay.

      --
    19. Re:It's not plagiarism... by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Try handing in a paper that your roommate wrote with your name on it some time and getting caught. You'll find that just because he said it was cool, doesn't mean it isn't plagiarism.

      A much better argument is that, ultimately, plagiarism is almost never a black and white issue. how many words in a row do I have to use for it to count? 10? 5? 2? Should every single paper have to cite the language(s) in which it is written because otherwise it is copying that culture's work without giving credit? Maybe we should only do it with words or phrases we can actually pinpoint to origin of... so if I use "assassinate" I should credit Shakespeare for being the first known user of the term? Do I cite my source for that factoid as part of the citation? What happens if somebody just doesn't remember where they learned a piece of relatively minor information, or turn of phrase? Should they avoid using it because they cannot give a proper citation? It is incredibly rare, so rare that it is questionable that it ever happens, that anyone actually comes up with something totally new, that doesn't reference or come from something else, so where do we draw the line between "this is plagiarism" and "this is the natural synthesis of information"?

      I have personally witnessed several rational and intelligent people reading the same piece, comparing it to several alleged uncredited sources, and coming to completely different conclusions as to whether or not it was plagiarized and what it was plagiarized from. Ultimately, it seems like the answer mostly lies in the context of the work more so than than the work itself, in the rules that govern that particular item. If you write a poem, nobody ever expects you to list every other poem you've ever seen that might have influenced it in some way, let alone give any information as to how... but if you write an essay about particle physics they sure do. It's certainly not because one has more or less potential to be completely ripped off from somebody else's work, so why is it?

      And what if, instead of apologizing, he'd essentially said "yeah, I edit Wikipedia, and I helped write those passages"? Would it still be plagiarism at all? It certainly makes plagiarism a messy accusation to level if he had some part in writing the source to begin with.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    20. Re:It's not plagiarism... by siloko · · Score: 1

      "Who is The Journal Of Quantum Physics going to believe?"

      God?

      And this is not off-topic, spiritual and religious issues form the bedrock of any consistant view of plagiarism. And copyright. And football.

    21. Re:It's not plagiarism... by JustJenFelice · · Score: 1

      Plagiarism has no meaning outside of an academic institution. It's an academic offence, not a legal one[1]. That's why you can't sue someone for doing it.

      This is incorrect. The original author can sue for unauthorized use of his/her work against the plagiarist and recover actual and/or punitive damages. While not a criminal offense per se, a person who plagiarizes can easily be sued for fraud or copyright infringement, depending on the laws of the applicable jurisdiction.

      --
      [Insert pithy line of moxie here.]
    22. Re:It's not plagiarism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

  3. Time Warp! by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I found the February 20th, 1875 article online that both Anderson & Wikipedia excerpted and it was actually pretty interesting to read. In college I had an English composition teacher that had us dig up old Microfiche and select an interesting article and write an essay on it. I found one that was an article of the execution of a slave convicted of rape and murder. It was amazing to find out that the details of the rape and murder obviously sold newspapers then just as much as they do today.

    What is really interesting is that even though this article is 140 years old, they still ended the soft articles on a light note (maybe I notice this because the Onion mocks it so often?). The last few sentences:

    I related to Mr. Lacoume the conversation which I had overheard between the old Frenchman and the waiter, and asked him if he had many discontented customers. "Oh yes," he replied laughing, "there are at least a dozen old fellows who come here every day, take one fifteen cent drink, eat a dinner which would cost them $1 in a restaurant, and then complain that the beef is tough or the potatoes water." Mr. Lacoume confirmed the statement that thousands of people in New-Orleans live on free lunches.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  4. Inability to cite web??? by clifyt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "All those are my screwups after we decided not to run notes as planned, due to my inability to find a good citation format for web sources"

    Really...because almost every form of writing style has web formats as a cite style these days.

    Hell, I use APA style, but it isn't much harder in MLA (the two biggest styles)...and it isn't hard to find even more...

    I wouldn't call this plagiarism, just lazy...and honestly, I know I've been lazy myself at times and screwed up (as I double check my thesis before handing it in tonight to make certain this hasn't happened to me!!!)

    1. Re:Inability to cite web??? by sys.stdout.write · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try arguing that in school: "I didn't plagiarize my paper, I was just being lazy!"

      Using Wikipedia entries as if they were your own is completely unacceptable in all contexts.

    2. Re:Inability to cite web??? by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Using Wikipedia entries even if they're properly cited is unacceptable. If he wanted to use Wikipedia as a research tool, that's fine, but he should have read through the materials cited by the Wikipedia article itself and used them as his sources, with proper citation. If the Wikipedia article cited no sources, then it shouldn't have been used at all.

    3. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only idiots cite Wikipedia anyway.

    4. Re:Inability to cite web??? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Hell, I use APA style, but it isn't much harder in MLA (the two biggest styles)...and it isn't hard to find even more...

      Yeah, Chicago style, ALWD (a major style in legal works) have citation styles for web sources; in fact, I'd be surprised if there is a serious modern style manual that doesn't cover web citations. The excuse offered is ludicrous on its face.

    5. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't you use information from Wikipedia with no cited sources? Why can't Wikipedia be the source? Does the same go for citing from Encyclopedia Britannica?

    6. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Using Wikipedia entries even if they're properly cited is unacceptable. If he wanted to use Wikipedia as a research tool, that's fine, but he should have read through the materials cited by the Wikipedia article itself and used them as his sources, with proper citation. If the Wikipedia article cited no sources, then it shouldn't have been used at all.

      This is what every teacher needs to be emphasizing to students. Wikipedia is not a source. It directs you to potential sources.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    7. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      Using Wikipedia entries as if they were your own is completely unacceptable in all contexts.

      Using any text from a source verbatim without identifying it as a direct quote is still plagiarism, whether or not the source is identified.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    8. Re:Inability to cite web??? by eln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course it does. Citing from encyclopedias, whether Wikipedia or any other, is not an acceptable practice in any sort of research I've ever heard of.

    9. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Some twit said:

      Using any text from a source verbatim without identifying it as a direct quote is still plagiarism, whether or not the source is identified.

      Entirely self contradictory.

      When you identify a source, you do it for each section quoted. And if you don't, then you haven't identified the source.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Inability to cite web??? by sorak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why shouldn't you use information from Wikipedia with no cited sources?

      I hope you're being sarcastic. If you have a source, then you have accountability. You may not be able to sue someone or have them arrested, but you at least have a name, and a person's reputation being staked on the accuracy of the work. In the case of Wikipedia, you MAY have a citation.

      Why can't Wikipedia be the source?

      Think of it this way. Someone publishes a paper or a college level manual, or conducts an interview. The person is the primary source of information on what they did. As such, which would you rather have, their account, or a summary of their account? Wikipedia is, at best, secondhand information.
      .
      Don't get me wrong, I use Wikipedia all the time, but if I were doing a research paper, I would use it only to get a grasp on the basics of the subject.

      Does the same go for citing from Encyclopedia Britannica?

      Yes.

    11. Re:Inability to cite web??? by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 1

      Instead, many just say, "Don't ever use Wikipedia! It is full of lies and deceit!"

      --
      I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
    12. Re:Inability to cite web??? by TerranFury · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Using Wikipedia entries even if they're properly cited is unacceptable.

      When I hear about this statement I wonder if it has more to do with fundamental truth or social convention. Are "authoritative sources" truly more authoritative? As a pragmatist, I simply avoid citing Wikipedia because I know there are people with strong opinions who would disapprove if I did.

      But let me give you an example:

      Suppose I need to look up a mathematical identity which is not obvious. I go to Wikipedia and find it there. Then I sit down, verify it myself (math has that advantage), and use it. Now I have a dilemma. Do I,

      1 - Use the identity without citation.

      2 - Cite Wikipedia.

      3 - Cite the source cited by Wikipedia without reading it.

      4 - Cite the source cited by Wikipedia after wasting my time slogging through it to get to the punchline that I just verified myself.

      Option #1 is fairly safe, but does nothing to help the reader, and moreover represents someone else's idea as your own (even if it is "common knowledge"). Option #2 makes your paper more transparent and accessible, and is honestly the most helpful, but it makes you look bad. So you might be tempted to do #3; that's somewhat helpful to your readers (but less so than #2) but also not entirely honest; it's also slightly risky because it's entirely possible that the unread source doesn't actually contain the tidbit you used. Option #4 is by far the safest, but it is a tremendous waste of time -- and since it asks your readers to slog through the same dense paper, it is less helpful to them than #2.

      Of course, this kind of use of Wikipedia is only really justified for things that one is in a position to verify oneself, like math. But I think that the standard debates about "authoritative sources" tend to neglect this angle, assuming that truth is necessarily generated by authority and is not observable directly from nature. For those cases where I can verify myself that what Wikipedia says is true, I'd sort of like to be able to cite it. Being a pragmatist, however, I refrain!

    13. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      I mean that it's possible to cite a source and yet still plagiarise. for example:
      When you identify a source, you do it for each section quoted. And if you don't, then you haven't identified the source. (Hognoxious) would be plagiarism, because I did not identify as a direct quote. However:
      "When you identify a source, you do it for each section quoted. And if you don't, then you haven't identified the source." (Hognoxious) is the proper way to direct quote. Alternatively, I could rephrase what you said and cite you as the source. However, direct text passages must always be identified as a quote.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    14. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      My professors (at Cornell) include links to Wikipedia in their lecture notes when they want to a kind of "read more" link (as opposed to citing specific information -- which one does not tend to do in lecture notes anyway). I suspect most of them would just link Wikipedia in that situation. Take that as you will.

    15. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Unacceptable? This isn't his dissertation or a thesis. It's a non-fiction book. It's not peer reviewed, and it's not subject to defense.

      He did the wrong thing. But let's not go OTT here.

    16. Re:Inability to cite web??? by ajs · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't you use information from Wikipedia with no cited sources? Why can't Wikipedia be the source? Does the same go for citing from Encyclopedia Britannica?

      I suspect you're confused about what's being cited. Of course, it's perfectly reasonable to say, "Wikipedia says that the moon is made of red donuts and bubblegum." This is a statement of fact, and if it were true that Wikipedia said that, it would certainly be a very interesting fact indeed!

      The confusion comes about when you are not reporting on the content of an encyclopedia, but on its topic. In that case, the encyclopedia stops being a primary source and becomes, at best, a secondary source. Secondary sources are ideal for writing about perception (Wikipedia encourages secondary sourcing as it's condensing the consensus view, not the unfiltered primary sources; e.g. they're rather you cite a book that talks about how multiple academic papers were received and what impact they had on the field than the papers themselves). However, primary sources are much more valuable to research works, and typically you only cite secondary sources when you're establishing broader issues that support a core conclusion after citing your primary sources.

      To sum it up simply: when you're writing for an encyclopedia, it's appropriate to cite secondary sources. When you're writing a more focused work that aims to distill a topic in detail, you should cite primary sources nearly exclusively and secondary sources should NEVER be cited to support your central points.

    17. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wikipedia at face value is just as valid as a source as any other collection of research. Wikipedia takes information from sources and condenses and analyses them for the reader, just like any other encyclopedia. It is perfectly viable as a quality source, as long as you take into account the quality of the sources cited by each encyclopedic article.

      For example, if you are writing a "general knowledge" sort of essay/book/whatever, directly sourcing Wikipedia is probably fine unless the cited sources of the wikipedia article are complete hogwash. Usually Wikipedia itself notes these sorts of issues, but you should at least peruse them yourself.

      However, if you are conducting academic research, Wikipedia is probably at best going to give you a basic understanding of the subject and point you in the direction of some research sources. It should probably not be used as a source itself. There are, however, a few very high quality editors in some of the subjects, so even this shouldn't be completely discounted.

      It sounds like Scott Adams used the Wikipedia snippets primarily as the former, in sidebars as general clarifications for the uninformed - something encyclopedias are very, very good at. It would be perfectly acceptable to source Wikipedia on this, especially if Wikipedia's sources are confusing compared to the article.

      Basically, anything can be a valid source - hell you could source a comic strip and it would be valid. What matters is your purpose, how you use the sourced information, and the quality of the source you are using. This goes for ALL forms of research. Nothing should be discounted simply because of where it comes from, but on the other hand nothing should be accepted for no reason other than the source.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    18. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Of course, this kind of use of Wikipedia is only really justified for things that one is in a position to verify oneself, like math.

      That's poppycock. You don't need to be an expert in anything to verify a wikipedia article. Basic research, even simply checking the wikipedia article's sources, will tell you if this is something that is consistantly agreed upon, or if it is somewhat contentious. That's why Wikipedia cites sources!

      The "Wikipedia is not a valid source, ever" idiocy comes from people who misuse wikipedia. These same people would misuse the Encyclopedia Brittanica or ANY academic research comprised of collecting and condensing data from multiple sources. Most academic research is done exactly the same way Wikipedia articles are, but being academic they tend to be more thorough, more rigorously investigated, and more directed to their target audience.

      In order to judge the quality of research, you must judge the quality of the sources. By definition, Wikipedia articles aught to be lower on the totem pole (high school research paper level stuff), but there is plenty of research in academia that is hogwash, and there are also many very solid and verifiably true Wikipedia articles.

      Basically, if you're going to use a research article of any kind (and Wikipedia articles are research articles by definition), you must verify that article as appropriate to your subject matter and purpose. If all you need is some basic information about a subject, Wikipedia is great without bothering sources. For something more specific and technical, you should verify the sources of the Wikipedia article. For something that must stand up to rigorous investigation, you probably shouldn't use Wikipedia for anything more than a place to find sources, and you should perform the analysis of the source yourself.

      Your math example is a good example of the latter - if you want to actually use the information in the article for something that will be scruitinized OR must be made to work correctly, you should perform your own verification. If you're just looking for cool maths, that's not necessary (unless you really want to see it in action :)).

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    19. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using Wikipedia entries even if they're properly cited is unacceptable. If he wanted to use Wikipedia as a research tool, that's fine, but he should have read through the materials cited by the Wikipedia article itself and used them as his sources, with proper citation. If the Wikipedia article cited no sources, then it shouldn't have been used at all.

      Pardon me if this opinion is wrong, my engineering PhD predates wikipedia. In general, if you USE a source, you ought to site it. This includes background information or general introductions to the topic. For example, many academic and journal papers have a "why this matters" "introduction". I say "introduction" because although it comes first, it is often written last and based on advisor recommendations. It may be a pedestrian piece that sites common facts (or factoids) and not intended to be the basis of the research. If you don't want to site the wiki for your factoid (e.g.,"50 million people in the US consume from a plastic beverage container each day"), then you either DIG UP the original source or you cannot site that information.

      For an equation fundamental to the work - like the heat equation or some other PDE - you can certainly find the info on a wiki, but it may be best to site a published, reviewed source. I am not a teacher, but if I was, I would encourage students to read wikipedia, site it, and GO BEYOND or more in depth. I fear your position is the worst of two possible outcomes. Students don't learn to use wikipedia(s) or students use wikipedia but plagarize by not siting it. Even if you dig up every original source on a wiki and re-write the whole damn thing, then that is still plagarism. It may be harder to spot, but plagarism it is.

      Were I you, I'd focus on integrity not repeating misunderstood platitudes. An encylopedia or wiki is often the start of research and is usually inadequate. Nonetheless, standards for referencing these works exist and should be used when appropriate.

    20. Re:Inability to cite web??? by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Suppose I need to look up a mathematical identity which is not obvious. I go to Wikipedia and find it there. Then I sit down, verify it myself (math has that advantage),..."

      You probably don't have to cite it. Especially if it would be considered "general" or "basic" knowledge in the field of study. That doesn't mean YOU didn't know it.

      In geology, for instance, you don't have to cite where you got the chemical formula of a mineral or the general characteristics of a rock, etc. even if it is rare or you have to look it up. Now if you had to go to the original source or close to it, you should cite it in some way.

      It generally won't hurt to cite it but if you cite everything, you really haven't done any research... And you look like a clueless idiot.

    21. Re:Inability to cite web??? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      None of the above: use option 5, which is including your verification as a lemma, and also referring them to the work described in option #4.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    22. Re:Inability to cite web??? by JimFive · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's ludicrous. How are you supposed to cite a Wikipedia article (or really, any web article) in such a way that when someone goes to research your sources the article hasn't been altered to remove the bit you cited? With Wikipedia you at least have the history of changes to look at, but it's still a problem.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    23. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Basically, anything can be a valid source - hell you could source a comic strip and it would be valid.

      Hey, I'm a DeVry grad too!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's cite, not site, you gearhead oaf.

    25. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      How are you supposed to cite a Wikipedia article (or really, any web article) in such a way that when someone goes to research your sources the article hasn't been altered to remove the bit you cited?

      Clearly these boffins aren't anywhere near as smart as you, but it did occur to them

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    26. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Would there be anything wrong in citing both?

      In your example, "Original proof by Whoever McSomeone, www.math.com, found through summary on Wikipedia".

      Is there anything wrong in that approach?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    27. Re:Inability to cite web??? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      No, Wikipedia is at best third-hand information as per their "No original research" policy. Original research would make it second hand (as the original experiencer would tell a first-hand account, the original researcher/interviewer would tell the second-hand account to the public, and Wikipedia, citing the researcher, would be telling a third-hand account).

    28. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Americano · · Score: 1

      I see what you're saying. Rather than going to all the bother of attempting to identify your source, you'd prefer to just skip it.

      Much cleaner solution there, I'm sure that'll catch on soon in all the trendy academic circles.

    29. Re:Inability to cite web??? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      Suppose I need to look up a mathematical identity which is not obvious.

      "The verification of this identity is left as an exercise for the reader."

    30. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even if his claim was true, that somehow he couldn't find an existing citation format that he deemed "good" (is that some Clintonian truth dodge, is he really saying "I thought all of the different formats I found sucked, so I decided to completely blow off any semblance of proper attribution."?), he could have devised his own format. Maybe he would have found himself incapable of devising a "good" citation format, but he darn sure could have cited the original sources somehow.

      Wired out to fire him, plain and simple.

    31. Re:Inability to cite web??? by julesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course it does. Citing from encyclopedias, whether Wikipedia or any other, is not an acceptable practice in any sort of research I've ever heard of.

      Yes, but writing a non-fiction book for the general market is not research.

    32. Re:Inability to cite web??? by JimFive · · Score: 1

      Allow me to rephrase. It isn't ludicrous to say that there is no good way to cite web pages. It is ludicrous to not try and then use the lack of a good method as an excuse.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    33. Re:Inability to cite web??? by JimFive · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Really? I don't see anything in there that solves the problem. Ok, there's an [Accessed On] tag, but that still doesn't stop the page from being irrecoverably modified on Date+1. So, if I wanted to fake references I would just need to look at the date the page was updated and pick some date prior to that to claim to have looked at it.

      I didn't say there was no possible way to format a web citation, I said there was no good way to cite the web.

      Citing arbitrary web pages is just asking for problems. Web versions of print publications are probably the safest to cite, followed by something like arxiv.org that has an interest in being citable then something with a change history like wikipedia, and finally, the rest of the web.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    34. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Americano · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      It is ludicrous either way. The author provided no reason why the existing citation formats for web sources weren't "good," he simply asserted he "couldn't find a good format." This suggests to me the author is:
      1. Full of shit
      2. Lazy
      3. All of the above.

      I find it hard to believe that the good folks at Hyperion Books - who sort of make a business of publishing books - couldn't provide him with a few samples of citation formats and wouldn't tell him, "just pick one - if you don't like it, it doesn't matter, you have to include SOME citation as due diligence."

      When there are accepted & well-defined methods for citing web pages & other electronic resource - as have been pointed out all over this thread - it is ludicrous to say there is "no good way" to cite web pages, period, full stop.

    35. Re:Inability to cite web??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It said keep a copy. It even put it in bold, FFS.

  5. Slashdot covers own ass (allegedly). by wild_quinine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nice cover with the 'alleged' in the title and all... but accidental non-citation is still plagiarism, I do believe. Therefore, since he's admitted himself, it's pretty much not 'alleged' any more. I don't care to share an opinion on the act, but I think we can safely call a spade a spare.

    1. Re:Slashdot covers own ass (allegedly). by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Funny

      but I think we can safely call a spade a spare.

      I like bowling too.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    2. Re:Slashdot covers own ass (allegedly). by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we just call it a spade?

    3. Re:Slashdot covers own ass (allegedly). by cathars1s · · Score: 1

      Couldn't we just call it a spade?

    4. Re:Slashdot covers own ass (allegedly). by eples · · Score: 1

      Or they could do what Fox News does: put a question mark at the end.

      "Obama having affair with the Ayatollah?"

      --
      I'm a 2000 man.
    5. Re:Slashdot covers own ass (allegedly). by tepples · · Score: 1

      accidental non-citation is still plagiarism

      If I'm writing something, how can I make sure that I don't accidentally non-cite?

    6. Re:Slashdot covers own ass (allegedly). by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      By NOT reading a source, copying it verbatim, and then saying "oops!" when you get caught?

      --
      Changa hates change.
    7. Re:Slashdot covers own ass (allegedly). by tepples · · Score: 1

      By NOT reading a source, copying it verbatim, and then saying "oops!" when you get caught?

      I don't understand whether you mean not reading a source, or not copying verbatim, or not saying "oops!" In other words, what can I do to avoid copying verbatim a source that I had read six years ago? How could George Harrison have avoided getting sued for "My Sweet Lord" (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music)?

    8. Re:Slashdot covers own ass (allegedly). by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      but I think we can safely call a spade a spare.

      I like bowling too.

      Yeah, but those Hoyle cards I throw always end up in the gutter.

  6. Web citing made easy by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anderson responded, "All those are my screwups after we decided not to run notes as planned, due to my inability to find a good citation format for web sources... "

    Zotero, brother: a plugin for Firefox. Makes citing online sources a breeze in any format you care to mention.

    1. Re:Web citing made easy by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He didn't say it was difficult, he said he couldn't find a good format. So a tool that makes it easy to do in any format, wouldn't have helped much. Still, its a lame excuse. Its like saying I didn't pay my bills because I couldn't decide on the right signature.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:Web citing made easy by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

      I'm curious to know what his criteria for "good" are. The professional societies that declare the citation formats have wrestled with the same issues for much longer than he has. Either they've hit on a solution he's not buying, or whatever quality he's trying to capture in his citations isn't important enough for the pros to bother with.

      Pick one and go, I say. At least he can show a good faith effort that way.

      I like the bill paying metaphor, by the way. I think I'll use that, depending on how this incident shakes out...

    3. Re:Web citing made easy by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Assuming that his stated reason is correct, I suspect it went something like this. "I don't really like the APA or MLA style for online citations. I'll look for some other style that I like, so take it out for now, we'll put the online citations in later."......Months later the book is published and everyone forgot to go back and put the citations back in.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Web citing made easy by fermion · · Score: 1
      This is silly. Almost every web page that is expected to be cited has the proper citation listed on the page.

      Specifically Wikipedia has a cite this page link in the left nav. For instance we can cite the article on . Once on the cite page, we can choose from any number of common citation formats. Just choose one that is acceptable. Saying they are all bad is pretty much aaying that any method of citation is bad.

      This is just a typical case of not wanted to cite a source. This is typical of casual writing. No wants to take the time and resources to cite where the information came from.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:Web citing made easy by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Being a former editor of an academic journal dealing with the law, I prefer Bluebook's format. Basically, do a cite analogous to its print version. An article published online would be

      Author, /Article Title/, <<Webpage Name>>, Month Day, Year, url. (where the double greater/less thans pairing means smallcaps).

      A book published online would be <<Author, Title>> page number (Edition# ed., Year), URL.

      Anything available in print but also available online (think Lessig's Code 2.0) can be done like this:
      [CITE TO THE PRINT SOURCE], /available at/ URL.

      Et cetera. There are a couple of things to add in certain circumstances. For example, an article without a date requires a "(last visited Month Day, Year)" and such in case the article changes or disappears.

      Easy peezy.

  7. Plagiarism by oldhack · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The term is largely meaningless if you accept all works are derivative.

    Seems its only use is as writer's equivalent of gorilla feces-pitching.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Plagiarism by wild_quinine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The term is largely meaningless if you accept all works are derivative. Seems its only use is as writer's equivalent of gorilla feces-pitching.

      No, the meaning is utterly clear. Don't pass off the work of other people as your own. Anything you add to the foundation is your contribution, and others wishing to build still further should cite you for that. Plagiarism is, in fact, when you *don't* accept that all works are derivative, and take credit for the whole body of work, not just the ideas that you added.

      It's not a copyright issue.

      An open-source equivalent would be if I created a cute little font switching extension for Firefox, and then claimed to have singlehandedly coded the browser, standardised HTML, and come up with CSS whilst I was at it.

    2. Re:Plagiarism by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Assume the premise. Then, "the ideas that you added" is also derivative work whether or not you are aware. What then is the meaning of term?

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    3. Re:Plagiarism by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      I agree. The term is largely meaningless if you accept all works are derivative.

      Seems its only use is as writer's equivalent of gorilla feces-pitching.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    4. Re:Plagiarism by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Stop throwing that shit at me you god damn ape!

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    5. Re:Plagiarism by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 1

      Um, that's what he said. Almost all works are derivative. Hence the need to cite one's sources. It gives credit to the original author and allows the readers the better evaluate the extent of your contributions. Plagarism is simply not citing your sources. Copying paragraphs from wikipedia into your book is not plagarism. Not citing your source is. Of course if he did cite wikipedia he might have been exposed as a lazy hack. But that's much better than plagarism.

    6. Re:Plagiarism by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      1) IF ... big if. If all works are derivative, where did they all derive from?

      2) Lifting sizeable chunks of text verbatim is stretching the definition of "derivative"

      3) Even if a work is derived from others, the proper thing to do is state the source of any unoriginal material.

      4) Never underestimate the entertainment value of poop-throwing.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    7. Re:Plagiarism by Tiro · · Score: 1

      You mean like this guy?

  8. I hope you don't get modded to oblivion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but I do agree with you. Who cares.

  9. Incredible Insightful Comment by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0

    To utilize one source is Plagiarism.
    To utilize two is Research.

    I just plagiarized from Tom Lehr.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Incredible Insightful Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To utilize without citation is Plagiarism. To utilize with citation is Research.

    2. Re:Incredible Insightful Comment by Nixoloco · · Score: 1

      I just plagiarized from Tom Lehr.

      I think you are doing it wrong.

    3. Re:Incredible Insightful Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because you cited him!

  10. Wikipedia? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can understand problems with trying to cite a web source. Things like Wikipedia, you'd have to refer to a page in the history; the content is always being changed. ... and vandalized.

    My objection to the author would be more along the lines of "why didn't you look up the sources used by wikipedia? Where IS the research?" As Wikipedia has a policy against original research, anything reliable on it is by definition at least second-hand. Is there a reason besides laziness that the author would not have indicated at least the sources given by wikipedia, if he could not do the research himself?

    1. Re:Wikipedia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I've always been required to do web citations is to list the date on which I viewed the page (I would usually print to pdf so I have a copy of the source and most browser print the date so I know when the snapshot is from). That would make it fairly easy to cite the wikipedia source and unlike a lot of web sources, with wikipedia the person would have a chance to look at previous version and possibly verify the citation or to see if something was taken out of context.

    2. Re:Wikipedia? by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

      I've only used MLA and APA formats myself, but when citing a web source, the citation format explicitly provides for a retrieved-on date. It's a concession to the fluid nature of the web. I expect any other contemporary citation format worth its salt will do the same.

      Some web sources are primary, by the way. There's no paper copy of my own web works, so if anyone thought I'd written something worth citing, they'd have to use a URL to cite it.

    3. Re:Wikipedia? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1

      Things like Wikipedia, you'd have to refer to a page in the history; the content is always being changed.

      Books change too, just more slowly. If I refer to a print encyclopedia, I better at least refer to a specific year, the article may be updated next year. It can even be a problem for fiction. If you don't cite publisher and publication location, and you cite that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire contains references to "pudding" and "biscuits" anyone checking your citation in the US release will be unable to confirm it. Rowling made changes after the books were published, a good reminder to the importance of publication year and edition number.

      --
      Search 2010 Gen Con events
  11. Students - try Zotero. by langelgjm · · Score: 1

    Seriously - if you are a student who writes anything of any length, check out Zotero. It's not just web citations, it can pull information from your library database, online databases like EBSCO, HeinOnline, etc. Use the word processor integration as well, it will save you hours of work.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  12. Moron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you utilize two sources without citing them, it's still plagiarism. But of course, on Slashdot you get modded up for idiotic comments anyway.

  13. Plagiarism without attribution by SheeEttin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Chris Anderson ... has apparently plagiarized content from various sources without attribution

    As opposed to...?

    1. Re:Plagiarism without attribution by Attack+DAWWG · · Score: 1

      Attributing yourself?

    2. Re:Plagiarism without attribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plagiarism with incorrect or misleading attribution?

    3. Re:Plagiarism without attribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copying the text directly without putting quotes around it, but still citing the source.

      That's plagiarism because he directly copied. That's attributed because he cited a source.

  14. Only one way to respond by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Boycott buying hard copies of the book, and make electronic copies widely available via bittorent. Simple test: If all the copied text was in quotes or italics, I would say he actually intended to attribute it. If not, it would appear that he was trying to claim it as is own, and only made up an excuse after he got caught. Which is it?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Only one way to respond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      TFA shows some pretty damning images of the passages in question.

    2. Re:Only one way to respond by pbhj · · Score: 1

      You too would be infringing the rights of the original writers, particularly the right to be named as author of their work. I think they waive that right under GFDL (old Wikipedia license) but you must distribute the license with the work. Others appear to say that Wikipedia license now allows work licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0 so you'd need to state the authors of the sections and make available any modifications under the same license - this can be pretty hard to establish for Wikipedia.

      I'm sure someone will correct my errrors fr mee.

    3. Re:Only one way to respond by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 1

      Boycott buying hard copies of the book, and make electronic copies widely available via bittorent. Simple test: If all the copied text was in quotes or italics, I would say he actually intended to attribute it. If not, it would appear that he was trying to claim it as is own, and only made up an excuse after he got caught. Which is it?

      Why would you want to do that? It seems like he didn't bother to put serious work into his book (and tried to hide the fact by not citing his sources) so it's probably a waste of time to read it. You would be doing a disservice to anyone who downloaded it from you.

  15. Apparently I am a Book Author by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    I am cited as a minor author in this C# book just because I edited a Wikibook entry on C# Programming, and then it got published later.

    I received no money but at least I got credit.

    I am trying to write my own book or books, I forgot how to use the APA format for web citations, but I will do research to learn it all over again, I hope. But my book is a work of fiction and parody, so maybe citations are not needed? What say you Slashdot?

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  16. Re:I thought piracy was okay? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was angling for a quick and easy "funny"; but I'll answer anyway:

    Norms of academic citation have basically nothing to do with copyright. Whether or not you cite something has no bearing on whether or not it constitutes copyright violation(except in the specific cases where citation is a license condition; or, possibly, in influencing a court's subjective judgment of whether use is "fair" or not). Also, whether or not something is copyrighted has no bearing on whether or not you are expected to cite it. Inserting an excerpt from a public domain text into your text would, without citation, count as plagiarism to exactly the same degree as an uncited clip from a copyrighted work; but could not possibly constitute copyright infringement.

    I'm not sure I buy the "double standards" argument(since slashdot isn't a hive mind, the fact that different comments say different things proves nothing, unless it is further demonstrated that the same commentators say different things under different circumstances); but that is tangental to this case.

    I don't think that I've ever seen an argument on Slashdot in favor of abolishing citation or attribution as a norm.

  17. wkipedia guidelines by zmnatz · · Score: 1

    I thought wikipedia was free to use however people want as long as the people who use it do the same? Wouldn't this fall under that situation since the guy is offering the digital copy of the book for free. Correct me if I'm wrong which I probably am.

    1. Re:wkipedia guidelines by zxjio · · Score: 2, Informative

      No the author has ignored the terms of the license and stolen their work. To be okay, he would need to have given its authors credit, and said that it is licensed GFDL/CC and so you too can use it. He can charge for a reproduction if he wants, cost is not relevant; but freedom and acknowledgement are necessary.

    2. Re:wkipedia guidelines by zmnatz · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's what I meant. I've listened to Chris Anderson a few times and it always seemed like he supported the whole free for anyone to use thing. When I said free that's what I meant, not as in price.

    3. Re:wkipedia guidelines by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      So technically Wikipedia could sue him for copyright infringement or breach of license. It depends on how the license is drafted. This distinction comes from a US case issued in the past few years.

  18. Citations will be online? by Xelios · · Score: 1

    I had no idea you could put your citations somewhere other than with your work. Next time I hand in a term paper I'll just tape the citations to my door, should be fine!

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
  19. let me google that for you... by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

    how to cite wikipedia

  20. Umm...Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The great irony here is that it seems the book isn't freely available online, unlike Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture.

    So a book about how information should be free is, itself, not freely available. Hey, it costs money to tell you how everything should be free.

  21. APA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently finished my degree, and the issue of citing the web always came up, because of changing content or the deletion of content, etc.
    But we were OK, so long as we cited the content, which is why our professors made us use APA formatting...it provides a simple and easy way of citing the web as a source.
    I am surprised that a Writer doesn't know that...
    or that an Editor would let it slide...

  22. cite or incite.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to neglect to cite a site from something worthy to recite shows little insight. I do not mean to incite but this will likely be modded out of sight... anyway

  23. Moron! MORON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You do know what "snappy witticism" means, don't you?

    GP knew it was supposed to be a joke but didn't think it was a good one. Parent should be modded down for being a smug, pompous twit who can't read.

  24. Publisher didn't use TurnItIn. by Animats · · Score: 1

    The publisher should have used TurnItIn.

  25. SO? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    We are building an entire world from the ground up where everyone believes they are free to use (borrow, steal, whatever) anything they can find on the Internet in whatever way they feel like.

    Music, movies, books, software, whatever. The idea of creative ownership - I created this and therefore nobody else can use it unless I say so - is rapidly disappearing in younger people's minds. The result of this is of course there will be lots of "unattributed use" because when nobody respects this kind of ownership, there isn't any reason not to.

    So plagiarism is just the first step. Expect to see more.

  26. Re:I thought piracy was okay? by afabbro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    since slashdot isn't a hive mind

    Try posting something positive about Microsoft here...

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  27. WHOOSH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm thinking most of you are not recognizing this unattributed quote?

  28. Re:I thought piracy was okay? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

    It's not about copyright, it's about attribution. Most folks on Slashdot generally support giving credit where credit is due.

    I wonder if he didn't cite Wikipedia as a source because he was embarrassed to admit he cribbed from a source that even 7th graders are told not to use on school research assignments.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  29. Re:Moron! MORON! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    He's German, he can't help it. You insensitive clod, etc.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  30. Re:I thought piracy was okay? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Information only wants to be free if it was created by J.K.Rowling, Evuhl Korparatiunz and that old guy that wrote "Farenheit 451". Pirate their works all you wish.

    Otherwise, kill all the leeching bastards!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  31. Subtle troll? Outlandish troll? Real? I dunno. by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

    You say you have a PhD then, more than a half-dozen times, you use "site" when you mean "cite," the sort of error that makes profs go bonkers, something you'd know if you'd been to college, which you must have since you have a PhD, but then you show you don't know how to spell "cite"...

    Aw, jeez, my head hurts.

  32. Re:I thought piracy was okay? by pbhj · · Score: 1

    since slashdot isn't a hive mind

    Try posting something positive about Microsoft here...

    "Microsoft really are the best at spreading FUD."

    Will that do?

  33. Plagiarism is a Copyright issue by pbhj · · Score: 1

    The term is largely meaningless if you accept all works are derivative.

    Seems its only use is as writer's equivalent of gorilla feces-pitching.

    [... ]Plagiarism is, in fact, when you *don't* accept that all works are derivative, and take credit for the whole body of work, not just the ideas that you added.

    It's not a copyright issue.

    [...]

    Is too a copyright issue. The creator of a work has a right to be recognised as the creator . Similar things apply with patents, that's why "inventor" is listed on patent application/publications.

    Berne Convention, Article 6bis S(1)
    "(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation." ( http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P119_19081 )

    One part of copyright law that is actually right.

  34. reality is a hive mind too then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Try saying something positive about Microsoft anywhere.

  35. It's funny how this vanished off the front page. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmmm. I smell a lawyer.

  36. Purdue's OWL (Online Writing Lab) has what he need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "All those are my screwups after we decided not to run notes as planned, due to my inability to find a good citation format for web sources..."

    Uhh. OK. Purdue's Online Writing Lab (OWL) has guidelines for this: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/584/03/.

    And they've got a hell of a lot more.

  37. Is it really plagiarism if it isn't finished? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it plagiarism if it isn't finished? It seems as if he will cite for the published copy. Obviously the review process pointed it out and he is taking steps to remedy it. Drafts of documents may often contain inaccuracies and poorly referenced materials. What's the big deal?