Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/Reporter plagiarizes Wikipedia

Citations

This story has been cited in the Hawaii Reporter and on the media blog Regret the Error.

More: Plagiarism Today, Jeremy Wagstaff. --Michael Snow 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And now the Hawaii Reporter reports that Ryan has been fired. Jer ome 00:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So what?

Isn't the content of Wikipedia free and open? Doesn't the GFDL allow this under Article 2?

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.

--BuddyJesus 16:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm, because there was no acknowledgement of Wikipedia authorship and nothing after the provided that clause was followed. Also, if you look at the article you'll note he stole from other non-free sources in addition to Wikipedia. Dragons flight 16:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Bemused

I went to the relevant newspaper site and looked at the other articles that allegedly contained plagiarised material. Now while lifting substantial content from other sites without attribution is plagiarism, some of his alleged "plagiarism" involved data sheets from PR companies. Journalists are given these data sheets to use. While cutting-and-pasting would be extremely lazy, bad practice, it can hardly count as plagiarism, since the PR people expect (want) their blurb to be incorporated into articles.

The interview article where he took material from someone else's interview was undoubtedly dodgy, but I am not convinced by all their other claims. I have also seen info on Wikipedia that appears to be cut and paste without attribution from other sites, but generally things like government or company information sites, that probably do not mind the material being reproduced.

--Istara 16:03, 17 January 2006 (GMT+4)

Honolulu Star-Bulletin

I added a bit about this story on the paper's wikipedia page. Clotten 19:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an isolated case

See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source 2005.

Econrad 19:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)