A short piece here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/andronicus-of-rhodes.html You can read it, but the take-home is pretty brief.
(1) Here is another of the many examples where proper encyclopedic content is plagiarised entirely from 100-year old sources.
(2) Suggesting the thought: if Wikipedia now is relying on century-old sources, what sources will Wikipedia be relying on in 100 years time? For Wikipedia has apparently made traditional sources obselete.
Peter :-(
On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 18:23 +0100, Peter Damian wrote:
A short piece here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/10/andronicus-of-rhodes.html You can read it, but the take-home is pretty brief.
(1) Here is another of the many examples where proper encyclopedic content is plagiarised entirely from 100-year old sources.
As I commented there:
I don't see how can you call it plagiarism when at the bottom of the article it is clearly written:
# This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology by William Smith (1870).
# This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (Eleventh ed.). Cambridge University Press.
(2) Suggesting the thought: if Wikipedia now is relying on century-old sources, what sources will Wikipedia be relying on in 100 years time? For Wikipedia has apparently made traditional sources obselete.
Wikipedia is not entirely relying on century-old sources, however this still remains an interesting question.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nikola Smolenski" smolensk@eunet.rs To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
I don't see how can you call it plagiarism when at the bottom of the article it is clearly written: "This article incorporates text ..."
Unfortunately we don't have a better word to describe the effortless and thoughtless copying of something from something else, so I will use that word. Note 'incorporates' suggests that only parts of the material have been, er, 'copied and pasted'. This is wholesale 'plunder'. The etymology of 'plagiarise' is 'kidnap'. Perhaps I should have said the articles were 'kidnapped'.
Wikipedia is not entirely relying on century-old sources, however this still remains an interesting question.
I will link again to my earlier post about the Ockham article http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-of-ockham.html
In my area, it's all like this. More later (Scotus!!!).
On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 18:47 +0100, Peter Damian wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nikola Smolenski" smolensk@eunet.rs
I don't see how can you call it plagiarism when at the bottom of the article it is clearly written: "This article incorporates text ..."
Unfortunately we don't have a better word to describe the effortless and thoughtless copying of something from something else, so I will use that
How about "copying"? Copying in general is both effortless and thoughtless.
word. Note 'incorporates' suggests that only parts of the material have been, er, 'copied and pasted'. This is wholesale 'plunder'. The etymology
I don't see that it does. It is rather the other way around - parts or the whole of the 'foreign' material could be incorporated in the Wikipedia article - which is true in this case.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org