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."

16 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Do as I say don't do as I do by ls671 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Do as I say don't do as I do by SterlingSylver · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Do as I say don't do as I do, some politicians outside of Argentina also have that attitude ;-)"
      -SterlingSylver, May 2010

    2. Re:Do as I say don't do as I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Do as I say don't do as I do, some politicians outside of Argentina also have that attitude ;-)"

      In my experience, that's what all politicians do. As do the cops. They set bad examples for the rest of us.

      No joke. The constitutions and other founding legal documents of all modern governments should have included a clause stating that when any politician, law enforcement officer, or other government official breaks the law, they will be subject to three times the penalty (fines, duration of incarceration, or both) that an ordinary citizen would suffer had he or she done the same. The reasoning is that when they break the law, it represents a threat to the institution of law and the concept of the rule of law, both of which are fundamental and essential to the functioning of modern society.

      Also, if the politicians and particularly the cops really wanted to improve their public image then the honest ones would stop looking the other way when they have knowledge of the corruption of the dishonest ones. Cops in particular are rather brave people; facing an armed assailant is "all in a day's work" for them and a possibility they accept willingly. Therefore, this cannot be a matter of courage or fear of retribution and is instead a matter of complicity. That complicity makes them just as guilty as those whose corruption they ignore. This is one of the main reasons why they are sometimes perceived as thugs who act only in their own self-interests while pretending to protect and serve.

      The only other thing that would dramatically improve relations between the general public and government would be to end the War on (some) Drugs. It began for mostly racist reasons and persists as a form of class war. The only reason why the proceeds from drug dealers might fund criminal organizations and create more crime is because there is high demand for these products that is not going away and no legitimate, honest business that can compete in an open market with them. There is also no moral justification for telling adults what they may or may not do with their own bodies and no ethical basis for imprisoning those users who are responsible and do not pose a danger to others with their habit.

      The classic example of this is someone who comes home from work and relaxes with a joint, does not drive, does not leave his home, and does not disturb his neighbors. What case is there for putting such a person through the nightmare world of our legal system? He or she is not violating anyone else's civil rights. How does persecuting such a person benefit society or create the perception of good and competent governance? Anyone who doesn't think such abuses foster an adversarial relationship between citizens and government has little grasp of reality.

  2. Enforce the Penalty by decipher_saint · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh pleaaaaaaaaaaase enforce the penalty!

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Enforce the Penalty by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If he introduced it as a law, it wasn't illegal when he did it, right?

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  3. While they were at it.... by AarghVark · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should have done a Wikipedia search on the definition of irony.

    1. Re:While they were at it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope. This story is indeed ironic. I'm sick and tired of people like you who think that there's NEVER a case where the word "ironic" should be used.

    2. Re:While they were at it.... by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't it ironic, that a guy who accuses another guy of not understanding irony himself does not understand it? Don't you think?

      Also here is what's not ironic: a reply from someone who is pointing this obvious ironic situation out. Isn't that pedantic?

      However then this someone making fun of himself for himself being pedantic, is that recursive or redundant?

      Guess what this comment is not but do not assign it what it is.

  4. Unit Testing by waitwonder · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is a well written bill with unit tests included.

  5. Re:Wikipedia's sources? by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  6. Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Once upon a time... by vrmlguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?
    1. Re:Once upon a time... by ae1294 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wrote an essay on the evils of communism, substituting the word plagiarism throughout

      So how many terms did you serve as class president?

  8. Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. by john83 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  9. Re:Wikipedia's sources? by tsalmark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe he wrote the article?

  10. It's not a plagiarism bill, actually. by baldusi · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!