[LINK] Wikipedia Critic Finds Copied Passages

[andrew clarke]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 12:05:58PM +1100, Richard Chirgwin wrote:

> 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.

Well, it happens often.  Editors are lazy, in a hurry, or - more likely
- deliberately out to deceive readers.  Some might just want to joke
around.  Everyone has their motives, but the theory is that the truth
comes out eventually.

The best way for readers to fix this is by editing the offending article
and putting {{fact}} at the end of the sentences that require
attribution, assuming the sentences are plausible.  The {{fact}} tag
alerts other readers to the problems (it will appear as a superscript
'citation needed' following the tagged sentence) and gives another
editor the chance to research those parts to find the original source. 
Depending on the popularity of the article, this may be enough to fix it
in a short time.  If not, you should feel free to erase the
non-attributed text, leaving a comment as such.