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.'"
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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday June 24 2009, @12:01PM (#28454643)
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 -
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.
I found the February 20th, 1875 article [nytimes.com] 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.
"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!!!)
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.
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.
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 th
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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 a
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.
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.
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 [zotero.org], brother: a plugin for Firefox. Makes citing online sources a breeze in any format you care to mention.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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?
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!
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.
It's not plagiarism... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's not plagiarism... (Score:5, Funny)
Plagiarism is copying from one source. Research is copying from many.
Parent
Re:It's not plagiarism... (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.
Parent
Re:It's not plagiarism... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
I
Re:It's not plagiarism... (Score:4, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (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 -
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's a "mashup"...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I thought piracy was okay? (Score:4, Insightful)
since slashdot isn't a hive mind
Try posting something positive about Microsoft here...
Parent
Time Warp! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Inability to cite web??? (Score:5, 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!!!)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Using Wikipedia entries as if they were your own is completely unacceptable in all contexts.
Re:Inability to cite web??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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 th
Re:Inability to cite web??? (Score:5, 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!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He did the wrong thing. But let's not go OTT here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Some twit said:
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Slashdot covers own ass (allegedly). (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot covers own ass (allegedly). (Score:5, Funny)
but I think we can safely call a spade a spare.
I like bowling too.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"Obama having affair with the Ayatollah?"
Web citing made easy (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 [zotero.org], brother: a plugin for Firefox. Makes citing online sources a breeze in any format you care to mention.
Re:Web citing made easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Students - try Zotero. (Score:2)
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.
Plagiarism (Score:2, 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.
Re:Plagiarism (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia? (Score:5, 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?
let me google that for you... (Score:2)
how to cite wikipedia [lmgtfy.com]
Plagiarism without attribution (Score:4, Funny)
As opposed to...?
Only one way to respond (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently I am a Book Author (Score:2)
I am cited as a minor author in this C# book [google.com] 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?
Citations will be online? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I just plagiarized from Tom Lehr.
I think you are doing it wrong.