Top 10 reasons for plagiarising Wikipedia
10. But I thought Wikipedia was free and for everybody.
9. Not my fault, my assistant/ghostwriter did it.
8. Umm. . .imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?
7. I did write footnotes and a bibliography, but all them ibids and op cits wouldn’t fit on the page.
6. See, I have a photographic memory, so I must’ve remembered the Wikipedia entry and thought it was mine.
5. No, that’s not plagiarism, I just ran a press release someone sent me. Verbatim.
4. I was testing you to see if you’d recognize the piece. Very good!
3. If twelve monkeys randomly pounding typewriters will eventually “write” the complete works of Shakespeare, why can’t I randomly type the Wikipedia thingy?
2. But everybody does it.
1. You don’t understand. I wrote that wiki, so it’s okay.
Bonus # 11. People read Wikipedia?!
Cutting and pasting your newspaper column out of Wikipedia entries: Evil (If you did it in school you would be expelled immediately, but in the real world you actually get rewarded!!) or Moronic (You couldn’t find a really obscure text to rip off?!)? Discuss.
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
April 1st, 2008 at 09:52
I like the cryptomensia reason in number 6. A possible number 11 is that there is judicial authority for using Wikipedia (at least in America):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html?ex=1327726800&en=92bbe5fe41874778&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Helpful as always, Wikipedia sets out instances of judicial use of Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_judicial_opinions
Cheers.
PS. One more link – a good discourse on plagiarism in popular culture:
http://mercurie.blogspot.com/2007/10/plagiarism-sincerest-form-of-flattery.html
April 1st, 2008 at 10:42
2a: Some wikipedia contributors dont cite their sources either so I thought it was ok.
April 1st, 2008 at 14:59
9. Not my fault, my assistant/ghostwriter did it.
Oops, now I’m in bigger trouble.
8. Umm. . .imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?
Even if it’s “nothing but a second-rate trying hard copycat.”
4. I was testing you to see if you’d recognize the piece. Very good!
And now that you recognize it, ready for another one?
3. If twelve monkeys randomly pounding typewriters will eventually “write†the complete works of Shakespeare, why can’t I randomly type the Wikipedia thingy?
Remember typewriters?
Cutting and pasting your newspaper column out of Wikipedia entries: Evil … or Moronic?
The act itself is stupidity plus dishonesty.
The actor err… writer is a daring, shameless “talent”.
The newspaper editor is moronic.
The newspaper is becoming a glorified tabloid.
The management is clueless or indifferent vis-a-vis journalistic ethics.
I reserve “Evil” for inventing a story, calling it non-fiction, and then selling it.
April 1st, 2008 at 16:01
10. But I thought Wikipedia was free and for everybody.
I gave out donations for the site, so I’m allowed to retrieve information from there. Lol.
5. No, that’s not plagiarism, I just ran a press release someone sent me. Verbatim.
See, I made reference to that particular someone. I did the quote-unquote style.
11. People read Wikipedia?!
Lol.
Evil or Moronic? I’ll get back to you. I’ll look if there’s an entry such as that in Wikipedia. :D
April 1st, 2008 at 20:32
Could it be that they’re simply ashamed of citing Wikipedia? (Because apparently that would mean they were too lazy to do exhaustive research.)
April 2nd, 2008 at 02:06
I’m with JD. It’s just not too okay looking citing internet sources a la collegiate crammer.
April 2nd, 2008 at 02:59
on his “toto” article, boy abunda copied wikipedia – and no, he didn’t named wiki as his source. there is an attempt to jumble up words – still, it’s from wiki.
April 2nd, 2008 at 05:02
Kind of annoying watching/listening to local media people trying to appear knowledgeable and “informative” going around with cute facts swiped off Wikipedia. They’d start “Did you know that…” and then you could easily say “Hey, man! That’s the exact wording in the Wikipedia article I read about a week ago! Oh noes!”
Not particularly evil, just…… annoying!
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:30
I think if you really want to get information from Wikipedia, just check the footnotes at the bottom part of that page. It will direct you to the original source of that information. That’s what I do.
April 2nd, 2008 at 13:54
> on his “toto†article, boy abunda copied wikipedia – and no, he didn’t named wiki
> as his source. there is an attempt to jumble up words – still, it’s from wiki.
BA, you should’ve prefaced your comment with Abangan! Susunod… isang eksplosibong rebelasyon!
April 2nd, 2008 at 18:51
That’s why I do my research using Uncyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page), hahaha.