[LINK] Wikipedia Critic Finds Copied Passages

[Richard Chirgwin]

Glen Turner wrote:
> andrew clarke wrote:
>
>> It may be that the Wikipedia user who contributed the text to this
>> article considered the information on the US government site to be in
>> the public domain.  It is my understanding that this is true for at
>> least some US government publications, ie. there is no copyright.
>>
>> Perhaps it would've been a non-issue if the user employed a bit of
>> "creative writing" to rewrite the plagiarised text - enough to be an
>> original composition - before they submitted it.  Of course there is
>> still nothing stopping someone from doing that in future. 
[snip]
> Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, so it shouldn't be
> plagiarizing material but attributing its sources fully.
Agree, Glen.

Attribution is, in my view, not only a right of the author. It's also a 
right of the *reader*. If material is not attributed, then the reader 
has no yardstick to judge it. Attribution of sources is a key tool by 
which the reader can undertake independent research and therefore judge 
the credibility of the source.

Expecting readers to swallow Wikipedia entries, sans attribution, is at 
best patronising and at worst deceitful.

RC
>
> Cheers, Glen
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>