Plagiarism on wikipedia? Uncited material would be a problem if only the article itself was used, but then if Wikipedia was used as a gateway as our academics suggested, it wouldn’t be as much of an issue.
Wikipedia does have a lot of plagiarism (The article on Microsoft, for example is in large part lifted whole from Microsoft’s own site)*, and now the web is rife with plagiarism from Wikipedia. You’re on your own as far as assessing the credibility of any page days.
Ultimately this will be a good thing. “Sounding authoritative” won’t be enough to lend credibility to anyone anymore.
- Of course, whoever did the lifting might have been a Microsoft employee with the top brass’ blessing, but good luck proving that.
As an aside, I’ve checked the diamond wiki article and on the current edits page seems to list precious little in the way of actual technical errors and most are purely vandalism, little edits that say “BRAIN AND STELLA LOVE TOGETHER!!” or the like. Not really something that you’d repeat in an essay or would affect your understanding of the article :dubious:
Granted, I am a grade-A nerd, so think of this what you will…
This smacks of elitism to me. I love History, and learning about things like Rennaisance art and Classical music (esp. in terms of their historical and cultural relevance) is fascinating to me. I also really enjoy having a free, easy to use, extensive library on a wide array of pop-culture topics. Why is it wrong for Wikipedia to have these things? What really makes one kind of (accurate cultural) information better than another?
There’s no space limit on wikipedia. I could understand being upset if a print encyclopedia were to devote space to such things, but this simply doesn’t apply to an online encyclopedia. If you feel there should be more info about the Baroque period, start submitting some. But don’t get all high-and-mighty and act like modern culture doesn’t deserve to be discussed and/or documented in a critical, factual manner. I mean, you post to the Straight Dope Message Board! Do you complain about the existence of Cafe Society? Isn’t it the same thing?
Ethically, how can anyone in the academic world recommend Wikipedia and have any kind of stance against plagiarism? It doesn’t seem right to say “You guys can’t plagiarize your paper but we recommend you do some tentative research at a site that is bursting at the seams with plagiarized work”.
Marc
Pretty much why our academics suggested it as a gateway of sorts only. The War of 1812 was cited as an interesting article for anyone wanting a brief synopsis of the conflict for example, but not anyone wishing to write an essay based on it alone.
I understand where you’re coming from but that doesn’t really address my point.
Most college instructors are dead set against plagiarism, so I wonder how they condemn plagiarism in student papers on one hand and then recommend that students examine a source where the authors are known to plagiarize the works of others. Isn’t that kind of a mixed signal? “Don’t behave unethically but go ahead and enjoy the fruits of another’s unethical behavior.”
Marc
The article on Microsoft has 143 citations and is featured. Please provide evidence for your claim that Microsoft’s website has been plagiarized.
I see a lot of Wikipedia Nazis on it. What I mean is there are a lot of pages where one guy has strong feelings and refuse to allow any correction he doesn’t see fit. I put a page on Sno Balls the snack cake. They had pages on Twinkies etc. The guy got so upset he said Sno Balls don’t have any worth in the Wikipedia. Apparently this editor has the last say. It’s a ridiculous thing but come on if they have a page on Zingers and Twinkies why not Sno Balls… 
I might guess its to have someone suggest sources from the cites given and maybe take an idea of the most important parts, so it probably is a bit unethical actually.