[LINK] Wikipedia Critic Finds Copied Passages

[Richard Chirgwin]

andrew clarke wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 05:02:38PM +1100, Kim Holburn wrote:
>
>   
>> 142 articles doesn't sound like a big deal really.
>>     
>
> Yep - I'm sure there are thousands more, but still just a drop in the
> ocean compared to the total number of articles.
>   
I guess it depends on the "nature of Wikipedia". The spectrum starts at 
"one plagarised article is too many" and ends at "who cares?"
>   
>> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/11/04/1162340080487.html
>>
>>     
>>> Wikipedia Critic Finds Copied Passages
>>> November 4, 2006 - 8:20AM
>>>       
>
> ...
>
>   
>>> "They present it as an encyclopedia," Brandt said Friday. "They go  
>>> around claiming it's almost as good as Britannica. They are trying  
>>> to be mainstream respectable."
>>>       
>
> I never got that impression about Wikipedia, but either way, what is
> more important is that its users (both editors and readers) understand
> its limitations.
>   
That, however, is the problem. The word "encyclopedia" is right there on 
the front page... not every user is going to know that the debate exists.
>   
>>> Brandt, who has long sparred with Wikipedia over an unflattering  
>>> biography of himself, called on Wikipedia to conduct a throughout  
>>> review of all its articles. The site currently has nearly 1.5  
>>> million in the English language alone.
>>>       
>
> Presumably Brandt just has an axe to grind, as obviously he too can
> rewrite or remove the plagiarised text, if he wishes, without making a
> fuss in the mainstream media about it.
The ability to fix doesn't imply an obligation to do so. Is there a good 
reason why Brandt (or anyone else) should *not* take the discussion to 
the mainstream press?

Richard Chirgwin