This news story

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=286630

raises a point that I had been meaning to mention for some time. The biggest advantage of Wikipedia, one might suppose, is that it can be completely up to date, to the point that it covers breaking news more quickly than some news web sites. (Admittedly, that can lead to warped coverage of the news!)

However, as the news story explains, many articles are regurgitated from pre-1923 reference works, and often left unchanged or updated only poorly. There must be thousands of such articles. I suspect that the problem is worse than is apparent, as no doubt plenty of editors rip off old books without acknowledgement. There are certainly articles that seem to be based on books from the 1930s, so they are out of date and copyvios!

Basing an article on a book from whenever isn't a copyright violation. You might argue that it's plagiarism, depending on how it's attributed, but it's not a copyright issue.

So, you admit there's plagiarism on Wikipedia?

There's plagiarism everywhere.

I've been lazily conducting my own experiment on this by watchlisting Nitrogen cycle. Some fairly important discoveries were published (and even discussed at length on NPR) some months ago that have so far failed to be incorporated or mentioned, but are actually fairly important for people interested in agronomy or global warming.

They noticed it even in the article Copyright (T-H-L-K-D) right now...

That's rather ironic, a copyright violation in the article on copyright.

It depends how closely it's based, does it not? If WP reproduces large chunks of a work still in copyright, with maybe only a few small alterations, would you not concede that there might be a copyright issue?

I have consistently argued that the above is the biggest disadvantage of Wikipedia.

The best articles are those that cover more traditional topics with more traditional sources, which require a lot of sources that you'd consider old.




Malleus



More like "fitting". Now, if the article was "avoiding copyright infringement" then it would be ironic.

Wikipedia isn't nearly an "encyclopedia" in its own definition of the word:



Wikipedia provides much, much more than "a summary of information" on many topics. If Wikipedia were a true encyclopedia, the policy or guideline or whatever about "article size" would be unnecessary.

I don't think there's anything stopping a "real" encyclopedia from being updated as quickly as Wikipedia, but that's definitely not always a good thing.

I don't see how this is hard to understand, or why you seem to be suggesting that I am a supporter of copyright violations or plagiarism anywhere. Wikipedia is not unique: I have a copy of a book published by Academic Press that reproduced word for word and unattributed a complete chapter from another book written by a different author. I wrote to the publisher but never received a reply. Publishers by and large don't care about stuff like that unless there might be money involved.

Oh well that's ok then. For a minute a thought Wikipedia was a pile of old shit. You know if it was merely genuine plagiarism and no other added crime Wikipedia wouldn't be a fraction of the evolutionary retard that it is.

The most important thing about Wikipedia's flagship 'Featured Articles' is that all the links are cited per TwinkleToes etc, and all the extremely dodgy links (as oppose to just the purely opportune ones) are at least one wikilinked article away from the article under question.

Rupert Murdoch is right (and it takes a rogue spot another) – Wikipedia is often common theft - legal or not - but without the professional and ethical standards adhered to even by a News International business. But of course, 'standards' were the sole responsibility of the unwitting reference writers, long before the de-functioning of balance and context (and even actual meaning) that occurs under the rusty knife of the reappropriating Wikipedia 'contributor'. Responsibility for anything is never, ever, ever Wikipedia's. “Verifiability not Truth!!!” squeal the smarmiest brats across the earth, thinking they are so clever. “Defer all responsibility for your actions by using any kind of citation” is what's closest to their hearts.

Wikipedia is such a evolutionary shitswirl that even Rupert Murdoch has moral superiority over it.

There is a plagiarism violation in the Wikipedia article about the company I work for.

Wow! Hold the front page!

I assure you that I am suggesting nothing of the kind. We both agree that plagiarism occurs on WP and should be condemned. I am adding that there are copyright violations too, and no doubt you would agree with me that these are wrong. Of course, they can both be found elsewhere, but that doesn't excuse them on WP.