[WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book

[wjhonson at aol.com]

 One would *hope* (although I'm not sure I expect it) that a writer at Wired would know how to properly cite a primary reference through a secondary citation.? I don't think this is an issue with our page, it is standard practice when citing.? Some people are sloppy I agree, but when found out they should be also called out.? I expect that they probably just thought they could "get away with it".? Lucky they have people like me to give them a slap-down ;)

Will




 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Reagle <reagle at mit.edu>
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: wjhonson at aol.com
Sent: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book










On Thursday 25 June 2009, wjhonson at aol.com wrote:
> Yes Joe but.
> Durova's point, with which I agree, is that they improperly cited their 
source.
> They lifted the picture *from* Wikipedia, and then cited the underlying 
source.
> This normally implies "I actually went to the source and viewed the image 
directly there."
> Which Durova has shown they did not.
> In scholarship that is considered a no-no.? You must cite the source *YOU* 
actually used, not the source your source used.

True enough, and my point about Public Domain is really about copyright, and 
Durova's point was about plagiarism and credit. So I missed the mark. However, 
had I more carefully responded I would have expressed that I think I would've 
made the same mistake Wired made. I would've seen "oh, this is in the public 
domain" and "oh, here is the source" and "and there's the author" and gone 
happily on my way. My trusty copy of Chicago Manual of Style (15th) similarly 
only concerns itself with permissions for copyrighted illustrations and images. 
Plus, there's no "cite this page" links there to provide guidance. The "Reusing 
this image" link similarly says nothing.

So I expect this is in part a matter of education, and so we be very clear about 
we would want such things to be credited. Is this a mutual credit, does the 
second credit go to Durova or Wikipedia? (There's so much info on that page, 
it's quite easy to get confused.)