Slashdot Mirror
In Argentina, Law Against Plagiarism Plagiarized
An anonymous reader writes "An Argentinian politician who introduced a law to send plagiarists to jail for three to eight years appears to have plagiarized the explanation of his bill directly from Wikipedia. The bulk of his explanation is three paragraphs that are taken, verbatim, from Wikipedia, without acknowledgment."
Do as I say don't do as I do, some politicians outside of Argentina also have that attitude ;-)
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Or... you know, maybe not.
Oh pleaaaaaaaaaaase enforce the penalty!
crazy dynamite monkey
Same ole' crap. "Stop stealing," says the thief.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
They should have done a Wikipedia search on the definition of irony.
This is more a case of stupidity in that he apparently confused plagiarism with copyright infringement. The more important aspect (to me) is that he is such a foolish person that he couldn't even explain the reasoning for himself. Not only did he require copying wikipedia, but he didn't even justify the new law. According to the article, he simply took the paragraphs that DEFINED plagiarism. This shows he has a complete misunderstanding of the topic, and worse, is apparently not smart enough to gather his own thoughts about a subject he wants to legislate.
I'm sure he will stay in office, as he is probably very good at winning popularity wars with opponents. I wish I could say that my own elected officials were better, but I know that isn't the case. Politicians in the US are only slightly better at disguising their ignorance.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Doesn't Argentina have like a free pass to take any IP that they want?
It is a well written bill with unit tests included.
Otherwise the politician won't have learned a thing.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
This makes me wonder how many politicians who favor strong copyright enforcement and huge windfalls for the RIAA download music illegally? Or about how many have children that do. Would G.W. Bush have favored the industry in the same way if his daughters had been sued for copyright infringement? I'm not sure, but I find it difficult to believe that legislators don't download songs illegally and believe themselves to be immune.
Facts have a liberal bias.
You just can't make shit like this up!
From TFA: Just to make sure someone didn't do the opposite and take the text of the introduction and make it the Wikipedia page, I looked, and as I'm typing this, the Wikipedia page hasn't been updated since April -- and it looks like the bulk of that page has actually been in place for quite some time. The bill was introduced on May 6th.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Plagiarism is not illegal in and of itself, except for where it's fraudulent
Plagiarism is always fraudulent. Its taking credit for work you did not do.
If we have rules for intellectual property, we should have them for intellectual fraud too.
Even in the "real world", where it should be (and is) perfectly fine to use someone elses work to solve a problem its still wrong to take credit for it.
Avoiding plagiarism doesn't mean you can't copy. It just means you can't take credit when you do.
Avoiding plagiarism is as simple as crediting the source.
RTFA
While I was in seventh grade, I missed a week of school due to an illness. My first day back in English class, we were told spend the hour writing an essay about the evils of plagiarism. In retrospect, it's obvious what happened in my absence, but at the time I didn't know what the word meant, just that it was bad. So, I wrote an essay on the evils of communism, substituting the word plagiarism throughout. Yes, I discussed the possibility of godless plagiarists taking over the country and forcing a plagiarist regime upon the American people. I don't think we got a grade for it, but the teacher thought it was pretty hilarious.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
As a rule of thumb never go into something where the worst thing that could happen is that you succeed. Plagiarism is not illegal. But is what this legislator wants. If he succeed, he should be penalized by his own law.
Fortunately there are laws that takes precedence. Murphy's laws in general, and Hanlon's Razor in particular should apply in this case: never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I remember other stories like this with congresscritters and senator types putting up copyrighted songs or text on their websites and being surprised when it's pointed out. It seems that they generally have a subconscious understanding of fair usage and consider it common-sense... thinking that copyright law is the realm of printed book and pirated movies being sold on street corners. It would explain a lot if they're pushing for harsher penalties without understanding the frequency that common people unknowingly violate copyright laws everyday.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Is there really room for crediting wikipedia in a legal bill? That seems silly to me. A law isn't an artistic endeavour. It has no direct commercial value. Applying the notion of IP to it makes no sense. I would have thought that the groupthink on Slashdot would lean towards disgust at this assumption of the blanket application of IP as a concept, but perhaps schadenfreude comes first.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Congratulations. In one sentence you have just removed all trace of malice from human endeavors.
If they didn't want to give credit (or couldn't) then they shouldn't have used the text.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
However being punished for plagiarism is completely discrediting all the work that you did do. I am always worried about my citations in college because of the EVIL PLAGIARISM which has all the consequences including failing the class. If the professor was a real dick, they will find a error in your process and then fail you because of this. Ignoring all you work.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
They should now pass a law that prohibits passing laws that contain plagiarized materials containing this one as an example.
The introduction of a bill isn't the same thing as the drafting of a bill.
Maybe he wrote the article?
From Wikipedia's Terms of Use:
"Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works."
If he didn't cite Wikipedia (snicker) then he's at least violated their Terms of Use specifying a "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0".. which I assume would be a copyright violation. But, IANAL.
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
I propose a new word to describe this - wikiflagarism, the flagrant plagarism of wikipedia.
It is an portmanteau of a malapropism with a neologism, or a Malamanteau.
Yes! But just because it's wrong, that doesn't mean we laws against it to send people to jail. Honor code violations, sure, expulsion from your university for egregious and blatant cases, yes. (Though I'd avoid the academic fundamentalists who would kick you out of school for getting the italics wrong on a citation and call that "plagiarism"... okay, I exxagerate, but only slightly.) Public ridicule? Bring it on. (Hey, look, we're bringing it on right now!) As for other things which can be equally "wrong", again: where's the law against lying?
Hey, this is Slashdot, remember? The atmosphere here tends to be seriously skeptical of the stronger notions of legal protection of "intellectual property."
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Remember when employment discrimination due to gender and race was outlawed? Not for Congress, as they excluded themselves! As far as copyrights and patents go, most governments that enforce such rules write exemptions for "public use." For example, the US government can implement any patent as long as the patent holder is reasonably compensated. The fact that Representatives act irresponsibly in regard to handling such exemptions is just another proof that power corrupts.
"I am always worried about my citations in college because of the EVIL PLAGIARISM which has all the consequences including failing the class. If the professor was a real dick, they will find a error in your process and then fail you because of this."
What institution do you go to? I'm astonished that they'd look at technical errors in citation format (is this what you're referring to?) rather than if the intent of the student was to claim credit for the work of others. I certainly couldn't imagine any major institution failing someone due to a mere technical error.
Please explain, I'm especially curious what you mean by 'error in your process'.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
If we have rules for intellectual property, we should have them for intellectual fraud too.
I disagree. Plagiarism is morally wrong, but that doesn't mean it has to be illegal. There are lots of things that are morally wrong but not illegal (e.g. cheating on your spouse). That's the way it should be: for the vast majority of things, social norms and consequences (including public outcry, shaming, damage to reputation, etc.) are more than sufficient. Laws should only be enacted in those rare cases where the public safety or public good needs more protection. To do otherwise gives the lawmakers/enforcers too much power, and tends to turn every person into a criminal. (Does it really make sense to prosecute a college student who cheats on an essay? Or is flunking him sufficient?)
Really, we have far too many laws at present, and could stand to have many repealed. (The various "intellectual property" laws could certainly stand to be pruned-down, for instance.) I see no pressing social need for plagiarism to be illegal. (Plagiarism may be part of some larger fraud, but in those cases there are already other good laws (anti-fraud, truth-in-advertising, etc.) to address the real transgression.)
Politicians never use copyrighted material without permission!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
> Congratulations. In one sentence you have just removed all trace of malice from human endeavors.
Er, no. Hanlon may have, but not the poster, who merely quoted the line and acknowledged the source.
Congratulations for failing to notice that something was quoted and attributed, in a discussion on plagarism and lack of attribution...
Plagiarizing Wikipedia is like singing Happy Birthday without paying royalties.
Seriousl skepticism is a virtue for any rational subject. That is, it's the wrong tool for questions like "do you love this person" but the absolutely correct tool for questions like "should this group enjoy stronger special legal protections?" If the concept is valid, it will survive skepticism because its merits will be demonstrable. The skepticism you witness here towards the stronger notions of IP law are due to a simple fact: they benefit a small minority of business interests at the expense of the rest of society. That does not constitute demonstrable merit; it is mere selfishness and exploitation and is unworthy of our support.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Even in the "real world", where it should be (and is) perfectly fine to use someone elses work to solve a problem its still wrong to take credit for it.
Failing to cite a source is not the same as taking credit for the idea. When people talk to me every day I do not assume that they invented everything that comes out of their mouths. That would make me an idiot.
Stealing credit for something is, in my opinion, morally repugnant. Failing to cite a source, but not in such a way that I get the false impression that you created something? Really, I could not give less of a shit about that. I care about citations from the standpoint of being able to verify your claim, that's all. If I trust you, then I don't need citations.
He was just waiting for a [Citation Needed]. No harm.
I live in Argentina and have read the original proposal. In fact he's proposing to up the penalties for misrepresenting, selling fake property as the original or selling property without that you don't own. Basically, you could sell fake goods, but you'd have to state it, thus, you'll be infringing on copyright. It's not so much about plagiarism as about misrepresentation and selling of fake goods as originals.
Having said that, I still think what he did was despicable and I seriously doubt his wits to be a representative. But which country is proud of its politicians? I would seriously consider moving there!
And did he do that randomly for no purpose whatsoever, or did he do that because he agrees with it and it supports the point he was trying to make? I don't see where he is contesting Hanlon...
That's immaterial to a discussion about whether malice should be discounted in favor of incompetence when strong evidence of either is not forthcoming. That is a matter of general principle applicable to many issues and is not limited to plagarism. Therefore, the discussion about plagarism is an instance of this greater theme and not worthy of the fixation you are showing. In other words, I doubt he failed to notice and instead I believe he rightly regarded that as trivial in the face of a much larger issue.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Doesn't Argentina have like a free pass to take any IP that they want?
Like, totally.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
If it's legal, it's called "fair use". The very use of the word "plagiarism" implies it's illegal.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Why not? It's not illegal yet.
You missed the point. I am still disgusted with blanket application of IP. It is not hypocritical to cite the hypocrisy and use it for justification of why blanket application of IP is bad. He just shouldn't have made the law on plagiarism, and if he did he needs to stick to it. The problem is that everything is plagiarized. Did you invent fire? Did you cite Ug for his knowledge of fire? I didn't think so. We're all in this together and the more we share information the better off we'll all be. Ideas are a dime a dozen, having the know how to build it is where the commercial value is.
Actually until the law is actually passed presumably what he has done is not yet illegal. In fact this could be an exceedingly devious scheme to convince people that the law is actually needed...although I highly doubt that is the case.
Yes, it's sort of funny but no big deal.
The explanation was simply an explanation of the bill. It doesn't really need to be credited. And this is the sort of the Wikipedia is for - explaining and summarising sometimes fairly complex information for the layman. If the explanation credited Wikipedia it would distract from the explanation. It's not like he was claiming to have created this clever prose himself (unless I completely misunderstand the situation). He just wanted to share the knowledge.
Did he include a grandfather clause to excuse any actions previous to the passage of the bill? :o) Slick politicians...
Pass the bill, with a rider that makes the law effective retroactively to the date of the bill was written.
It's not fraudulent in the legal sense, which is what the OP was referring to.
For example, if you went around saying you built the Statue of Liberty, you would not be arrested for fraud. That is because simply lying, or taking credit for other people's work, or being an overall jerkwad, is not illegal.
In Soviet Russia, law plagiarizes you!
-- Boycott Shell
I work in the sciences, and I expect my work to be cited just as I cite the work of others. But as a free, open, and anonymous service, why does wikipedia need to be cited? The information provided by this source is free and open, just like its accuracy.
However, I'm not saying that the Argentinian legislator is in the right, he should have put the relevant passage under quotation marks.
When I read this article, I immediately thought, what if he edited wikipedia (with a sockpuppet) to coincide with his bill before he introduced it? He can't be said to plagiarize his own text, after all.
The revision history of the article reveals that the current first three paragraphs were written on 19 April 2010 by Andreasmperu, who has been a prolific spanish wikipedia user for some years, is certainly not a sock puppet, is probably a woman, and may be from Peru.
Since I have disposed with the sock puppet theory, I feel comfortable embracing the much more humorous prevailing theory (pleasantly reinforcing my preconceptions about politicians) that Gerónimo Vargas Aignasse did in fact plagiarize the text of his plagiarism bill.
AFAIK, law acts are strictly exempt from copyright - either you copyright it or enforce it, never both. This applies to all law-binding texts - bills, EULAs, contracts and so on. That's also why "boilerplate licenses" are so common - you are perfectly legal to take some company's EULA, replace the company name and use it as your own (you'd better understand the clauses though). I'm not sure if it works like this in -all- countries, but definitely in most.
Still, what he plagiarized was explanation of the bill, not the bill itself. It didn't define the rules, just describe them, and as such was perfectly copyrightable.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
There's a difference between the you-can't-use-this-unless-you-pay-me-IP and giving credit where credit is due "IP."
The idea of not claiming someone else's work as your own is a lot older than the profit motive style IP.
Unless he's got a secret life as a Peruvian woman, doubtful.
Honest I had meant that post as a joke. Not sure why everyone modded it insightful, especially when I or anybody else could have looked up the edit history in a few seconds.
I was myself the "victim" of a similar case, that is a magazine that says you can't copy their articles without at least attribution, then fully copied one of mine... without attribution, of course. When I said "you should replace the full text with an abstract and link to source" they simply removed the whole page :-|
I'm going to assume that really do you have no idea of what you're talking about, instead of just trolling for an argument.
See how easy that is?