Wikipediocracy

A comment in another thread said, "I was accused of finding circular plagiarism."

From a bit of chance, I discovered an interesting one today.

Back in February 2009, a user at MyWikiBiz "imported" (plagiarized) a Wikipedia article entitled Disney Vacation Club. The Wikipedia edit summary must have caught the eye of the MyWikiBiz editor: "Rmv material. This is far too much information with a commerical (sic) motivation".

That's a sure sign a Wikipedia article is about to get the "not all information wants to be free" treatment.

Anyway, fast-forward to February 2014. Another Wikipedian continues the years-long rage against commercial content on Disney Vacation Club (T-H-L). Geraldshields11 declares that the Wikipedia article reads too much like an advertisement, saying that the text came "from http://www.mywikibiz.com/Disney_Vacation_Club".

How about that?! Blame MyWikiBiz for the "advertising" that Wikipedia was happy to be the publisher of between 2005 and 2009. Gerald, if you are looking for a culprit, you need to look back to this French Wikipedian from 2005, my friend.

We ought to find more examples of this and post them.

I wonder if Jean-Paul Ollivier would qualify as a "circular plagiarist". He plagiarized Wikipedia and claimed it was plagiarizing him....
https://twitter.com/J_P_Ollivier/status ... 4724415488

I have a book on the Battle of Guadalcanal which uses Wikipedia as a source on a tidbit about the movie South Pacific. I should have used the book as a source in the South Pacific article so that I could use it later as an example of circular sourcing.

Cla68 wrote:I have a book on the Battle of Guadalcanal which uses Wikipedia as a source on a tidbit about the movie South Pacific. I should have used the book as a source in the South Pacific article so that I could use it later as an example of circular sourcing.

If now is bad, there are plans to publish Wikipedia in the recycled tree edition under different names.

Cla68 wrote:I have a book on the Battle of Guadalcanal which uses Wikipedia as a source on a tidbit about the movie South Pacific. I should have used the book as a source in the South Pacific article so that I could use it later as an example of circular sourcing.

Please do. And I'll put it on the book wiki. (Our collection of plagiarism incidents is getting unwieldy, but circular plagiarism is "special".)

If we ever blog this topic, that image ought to be used (CC-BY-NC license) in some way. Randall noted this cycle a long time ago.

Related posts are here and here. I apologize for creating yet another thread about the theme. Maybe a grand merger is in order?

thekohser wrote:Related posts are here and here. I apologize for creating yet another thread about the theme. Maybe a grand merger is in order?

Recurring issues will generate recurring threads. The fact that this issue recurs so frequently suggests that a blog post is in order. Anybody up to writing one?

But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second. Many sources on the Pendle witches, for instance, give an incorrect date for Good Friday 1612, presumably because they've all copied from each other without checking. Nothing to do with Wikipedia, which actually gives the correct date.

Malleus wrote:But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second.

Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

thekohser wrote:Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

Almost certainly this has happened. The case of Marthe Gautier and credit for the discovery of trisomy 23 as the genetic mechanism underlying Down Syndrome comes quite close to matching this (especially given Jérôme Lejeune's litigiousness), and several of the accounts in the history of mathematics (note especially serial plagiarist Nikolai Lobachevsky) likely involve plagiarists leveling allegations of plagiarism at the very people they stole from.

It's quite likely that somone producing say a third edition of a book will have been accused of plagiarising material that was in the first edition.

thekohser wrote:

Malleus wrote:But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second.

Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

As the history of the authorship of books is far less transparent than that of a WP article it's difficult to say, but back to my example, who was the first author to get the date of Good Friday 1612 wrong? And why did so many others make the same mistake? The only point I was trying to make is that this practice didn't originate with WP.

Malleus wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Malleus wrote:But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second.

Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

As the history of the authorship of books is far less transparent than that of a WP article it's difficult to say, but back to my example, who was the first author to get the date of Good Friday 1612 wrong? And why did so many others make the same mistake? The only point I was trying to make is that this practice didn't originate with WP.

It's true that this practice did not originate with Wikipedia, but there are recent episodes with a unique flavor. One purpose of our site is to bring to the public attention some of the problems involved with Wikipedia's prominence as a source of information. Hence the suggestion of a blog post about circular plagiarism, a la Wikipedia.

thekohser wrote:

Malleus wrote:But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second.

Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

I can do better than that with a case of a musician sued for supposedly plagiarizing from himself. See Fogerty_v._Fantasy,_Inc. (T-H-L).

Zoloft wrote:

Malleus wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Malleus wrote:But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second.

Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

As the history of the authorship of books is far less transparent than that of a WP article it's difficult to say, but back to my example, who was the first author to get the date of Good Friday 1612 wrong? And why did so many others make the same mistake? The only point I was trying to make is that this practice didn't originate with WP.

It's true that this practice did not originate with Wikipedia, but there are recent episodes with a unique flavor. One purpose of our site is to bring to the public attention some of the problems involved with Wikipedia's prominence as a source of information. Hence the suggestion of a blog post about circular plagiarism, a la Wikipedia.

I like the idea.

I would also like someone to look at how many times a bad en.Wikipedia is propogated thoughout the web and its staying power (I am time cruncher for summers, WalMart, you know).

I corrected the spelling of a plant family article that had 50,000 google misfires courtesy of en.Wikipedia science fact-checking (you can date search--this error originated ith en.Wikipedia.) A while later it had 35,000 g-hits. Who knows how many foreign language hits.

Zoloft wrote:

Malleus wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Malleus wrote:But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second.

Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

As the history of the authorship of books is far less transparent than that of a WP article it's difficult to say, but back to my example, who was the first author to get the date of Good Friday 1612 wrong? And why did so many others make the same mistake? The only point I was trying to make is that this practice didn't originate with WP.

It's true that this practice did not originate with Wikipedia, but there are recent episodes with a unique flavor. One purpose of our site is to bring to the public attention some of the problems involved with Wikipedia's prominence as a source of information. Hence the suggestion of a blog post about circular plagiarism, a la Wikipedia.

Blog whatever you like, but don't suggest that this practice originated with Wikipedia.

enwikibadscience wrote:

Zoloft wrote:

Malleus wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Malleus wrote:But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second.

Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

As the history of the authorship of books is far less transparent than that of a WP article it's difficult to say, but back to my example, who was the first author to get the date of Good Friday 1612 wrong? And why did so many others make the same mistake? The only point I was trying to make is that this practice didn't originate with WP.

It's true that this practice did not originate with Wikipedia, but there are recent episodes with a unique flavor. One purpose of our site is to bring to the public attention some of the problems involved with Wikipedia's prominence as a source of information. Hence the suggestion of a blog post about circular plagiarism, a la Wikipedia.

I like the idea.

I would also like someone to look at how many times a bad en.Wikipedia is propogated thoughout the web and its staying power (I am time cruncher for summers, WalMart, you know).

I corrected the spelling of a plant family article that had 50,000 google misfires courtesy of en.Wikipedia science fact-checking (you can date search--this error originated ith en.Wikipedia.) A while later it had 35,000 g-hits. Who knows how many foreign language hits.

But that's not circular plagiarism, nor is it even plagiarism.

Newyorkbrad wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Malleus wrote:But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second.

Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

I can do better than that with a case of a musician sued for supposedly plagiarizing from himself. See Fogerty_v._Fantasy,_Inc. (T-H-L).

Not exactly what he was accused of; more a case of infringing on a work he originally created and then assigned to a third party. To be "self-plagiarism" he would have to have been plagiarised by someone else and then accused of plagiarising the plagiarism when the original work (re)surfaces. Nobody seriously questions that Fogerty was the actual creator of both works in Fogerty v. Fantasy.

Malleus wrote:

enwikibadscience wrote:

Zoloft wrote:

Malleus wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Malleus wrote:But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second.

Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

As the history of the authorship of books is far less transparent than that of a WP article it's difficult to say, but back to my example, who was the first author to get the date of Good Friday 1612 wrong? And why did so many others make the same mistake? The only point I was trying to make is that this practice didn't originate with WP.

It's true that this practice did not originate with Wikipedia, but there are recent episodes with a unique flavor. One purpose of our site is to bring to the public attention some of the problems involved with Wikipedia's prominence as a source of information. Hence the suggestion of a blog post about circular plagiarism, a la Wikipedia.

I like the idea.

I would also like someone to look at how many times a bad en.Wikipedia is propogated thoughout the web and its staying power (I am time cruncher for summers, WalMart, you know).

I corrected the spelling of a plant family article that had 50,000 google misfires courtesy of en.Wikipedia science fact-checking (you can date search--this error originated ith en.Wikipedia.) A while later it had 35,000 g-hits. Who knows how many foreign language hits.

But that's not circular plagiarism, nor is it even plagiarism.

I like the idea of a blog post on circular plagiarism.

I agree the purpose of Wikipediocracy is to bring attention to problems at Wikipedia.

Another problem I would like to see addressed in a blog post to point out problems on Wkipedia is errors perpetuated into the Googledom.

Hopefully the blog post will manage to make a convincing case then that this circular plagiarism issue is a uniquely Wikipedia problem.

Perhaps this should be restricted to clear cases of source > WP > new source > WP again, which are difficult to find.
There is plenty of simple plagiarism to/from WP. I don't think it's really "circular" until it's gone through at least a double WP citation.

Malleus wrote:

Zoloft wrote:

Malleus wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Malleus wrote:But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second.

Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

As the history of the authorship of books is far less transparent than that of a WP article it's difficult to say, but back to my example, who was the first author to get the date of Good Friday 1612 wrong? And why did so many others make the same mistake? The only point I was trying to make is that this practice didn't originate with WP.

It's true that this practice did not originate with Wikipedia, but there are recent episodes with a unique flavor. One purpose of our site is to bring to the public attention some of the problems involved with Wikipedia's prominence as a source of information. Hence the suggestion of a blog post about circular plagiarism, a la Wikipedia.

Blog whatever you like, but don't suggest that this practice originated with Wikipedia.

Malleus wrote:Hopefully the blog post will manage to make a convincing case then that this circular plagiarism issue is a uniquely Wikipedia problem.

Malfeasance isn't unique to Wikipedia either. But we can still blog about it.

So long as you blog about it fairly, which I doubt you will.

Malleus wrote:So long as you blog about it fairly, which I doubt you will.

Does someone pee in your bran flakes every day?

Zoloft wrote:

Malleus wrote:So long as you blog about it fairly, which I doubt you will.

Does someone pee in your bran flakes every day?

You? The unpalatable fact, to you at least, is that you run this site as if it's a nursery school full of compliant children. Now put me on your naughty step (again) and see if I care.

Malleus wrote:

Zoloft wrote:

Malleus wrote:So long as you blog about it fairly, which I doubt you will.

Does someone pee in your bran flakes every day?

You? The unpalatable fact, to you at least, is that you run this site as if it's a nursery school full of compliant children. Now put me on your naughty step (again) and see if I care.

Somewhere, a ferret needs cuddling.

EricBarbour wrote:

Malleus wrote:

Zoloft wrote:

Malleus wrote:So long as you blog about it fairly, which I doubt you will.

Does someone pee in your bran flakes every day?

You? The unpalatable fact, to you at least, is that you run this site as if it's a nursery school full of compliant children. Now put me on your naughty step (again) and see if I care.

Somewhere, a ferret needs cuddling.

Almost certainly, but all of mine are asleep, so I'm currently cuddling a cat.

There's something different about men who love cats.

thekohser wrote:There's something different about men who love cats.

Not to mention men who love dogs, or is that getting NSFW?

thekohser wrote:There's something different about men who love cats.

One thing I just learned is they're not gentlemen, and this means they don't make love on their elbows.

Malleus wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Malleus wrote:But this has been going on since the first book was written, or maybe the second.

Has there ever been a case where an author of original content (with publication date clear for all to see) was accused of plagiarizing from a second author who published content (at a later publication date) he'd plagiarized from the first author?

As the history of the authorship of books is far less transparent than that of a WP article it's difficult to say, but back to my example, who was the first author to get the date of Good Friday 1612 wrong? And why did so many others make the same mistake? ...

Apart from careless copying, which you have already mentioned, there is also the problem of calendar confusion. If you enter the year 1612 in many Easter date calculators (such as this one, for instance) they will tell you that Good Friday occurred in that year on April 20th. And so it did in the Catholic parts of Europe which had already adopted the Gregorian calendar. However, at that time England was still using the Julian calendar, according to which that same day was dated April 10th.