Plagiarism of Wikipedia
October 9, 2006 5:05 AM Subscribe
ABC Australia reports on plagiarism of Wikipedia by traditional media.
how difficult is it to paraphrase what you're lifting
Paraphrasing is still plagerism if the source isn't cited.
posted by srboisvert at 5:18 AM on October 9, 2006
Paraphrasing is still plagerism if the source isn't cited.
posted by srboisvert at 5:18 AM on October 9, 2006
Thanks srboisvert, but I'm talking practicalities here, not semantics and didn't actually say that it wouldn't make him a plagiarist.
Had he bothered to paraphrase, in a case like this, he would have been very unlikely to get caught in the first place. And, even if someone had noticed the similarities, it would have been pretty tough to prove - as most information in Wikipedia will also be available from other sources.
That said, rather amusingly, repeating inaccuracies peculiar to wikipedia might have tripped him up, although someone would need to be looking rather specifically...
posted by rhymer at 5:35 AM on October 9, 2006
Had he bothered to paraphrase, in a case like this, he would have been very unlikely to get caught in the first place. And, even if someone had noticed the similarities, it would have been pretty tough to prove - as most information in Wikipedia will also be available from other sources.
That said, rather amusingly, repeating inaccuracies peculiar to wikipedia might have tripped him up, although someone would need to be looking rather specifically...
posted by rhymer at 5:35 AM on October 9, 2006
rhymer writes "I'm always amazed when people working in newspapers etc. plagiarise Wikipedia. "
Have you read a widely-circulated newspaper lately?
If nothing else, these past several years of immersion in political blogs has taught me that the traditional media has absolutely no controls in place to ensure consistent, accurate reporting. At least Wikipedia, when it represents a view, generally presents the must substantiated one.
There is no such reliability if the media itself is used as a source -- two articles within the same paper will contradict each other; for two articles on the same subject within the same week, one will thoroughly cover a story and one will print the talking points of the other side, not at all attempting to find independent support. "Alleged" or "claims" have become substitutes for journalists actually knowing the facts...
Please, journalists, plagiarize Wikipedia. I don't even care if use proper attribution. Whichever way you go, it's hopefully going to result in a more accurate final piece than when you interview a senior Republican congressperson and then present confirmation by a senior Republican executive branch member as independent verification.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:40 AM on October 9, 2006
Have you read a widely-circulated newspaper lately?
If nothing else, these past several years of immersion in political blogs has taught me that the traditional media has absolutely no controls in place to ensure consistent, accurate reporting. At least Wikipedia, when it represents a view, generally presents the must substantiated one.
There is no such reliability if the media itself is used as a source -- two articles within the same paper will contradict each other; for two articles on the same subject within the same week, one will thoroughly cover a story and one will print the talking points of the other side, not at all attempting to find independent support. "Alleged" or "claims" have become substitutes for journalists actually knowing the facts...
Please, journalists, plagiarize Wikipedia. I don't even care if use proper attribution. Whichever way you go, it's hopefully going to result in a more accurate final piece than when you interview a senior Republican congressperson and then present confirmation by a senior Republican executive branch member as independent verification.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:40 AM on October 9, 2006
VulcanMike writes "one will print the talking points of the other side"
In this case, I'm referring to the "side I'm not on" apparently. You can surely guess which blogs I've been reading.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:42 AM on October 9, 2006
In this case, I'm referring to the "side I'm not on" apparently. You can surely guess which blogs I've been reading.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:42 AM on October 9, 2006
VulcanMike, I have to disagree with you. Although to be fair, I think we are coming at this from very different places. I work in the UK media and I write mainly about business not politics.
In my personal experience (and I speak as someone who has no wish to be jumped on by an editor for using incorrect information or, for that matter to occasion a lawsuit) Wikipedia is accurate enough to be useful, but certainly not accurate enough to be relied upon.
If I were to read a news (not opinion) piece in say, the Guardian or on the BBC's website I would happily contend that its standards of accuracy were probably higher than wikipedia's. However I do take your point, that this is not the case with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh others who use facts selectively and interchangeably with opinions.
posted by rhymer at 5:55 AM on October 9, 2006
In my personal experience (and I speak as someone who has no wish to be jumped on by an editor for using incorrect information or, for that matter to occasion a lawsuit) Wikipedia is accurate enough to be useful, but certainly not accurate enough to be relied upon.
If I were to read a news (not opinion) piece in say, the Guardian or on the BBC's website I would happily contend that its standards of accuracy were probably higher than wikipedia's. However I do take your point, that this is not the case with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh others who use facts selectively and interchangeably with opinions.
posted by rhymer at 5:55 AM on October 9, 2006
How often does it go the other way? How many Wikipedia articles are plagiarized from other sources I wonder?
posted by LarryC at 6:46 AM on October 9, 2006
posted by LarryC at 6:46 AM on October 9, 2006
They're quote strict about it, LarryC, but it has to be found before it can be addressed. I think the question is how many articles in Wikipedia are rarely looked at by the active editors?
Regardless of the truthiness of WP, this is just plain laziness. Yay for Media Watch!
posted by goo at 6:54 AM on October 9, 2006
Regardless of the truthiness of WP, this is just plain laziness. Yay for Media Watch!
posted by goo at 6:54 AM on October 9, 2006
Well, the media in Canada is of varying but generally acceptable quality, but even I am surprised to see things FPP'd materialize days later as the subject of columns in the Globe&Mail. I highly doubt these are coincidences judging by the frequency that this occurs, especially considering comments are often lifted out of the threads here...
posted by mek at 7:16 AM on October 9, 2006
posted by mek at 7:16 AM on October 9, 2006
"I am surprised to see things FPP'd materialize days later as the subject of columns in the Globe&Mail."
On that note, what about that Kim Jong Il guy dressing up in an elephant costume to exchange hot IMs with a Republican congressman? I'm not surprised Kim's wife exploded when she found out.
posted by davy at 7:28 AM on October 9, 2006
On that note, what about that Kim Jong Il guy dressing up in an elephant costume to exchange hot IMs with a Republican congressman? I'm not surprised Kim's wife exploded when she found out.
posted by davy at 7:28 AM on October 9, 2006
With Wikipedia's policy of being free to copy and redistribute, with or without modification, either commercially or noncommercially - does plagiarism really apply?
posted by fairmettle at 7:32 AM on October 9, 2006
posted by fairmettle at 7:32 AM on October 9, 2006
How many Wikipedia articles are plagiarized from other sources I wonder?
Does it count as plagiarism if they give a cite, but otherwise lift the whole sentence verbatim from the source material?
posted by smackfu at 7:32 AM on October 9, 2006
Does it count as plagiarism if they give a cite, but otherwise lift the whole sentence verbatim from the source material?
posted by smackfu at 7:32 AM on October 9, 2006
If the work is not cited, yes it is still plagiarism. Is it theft? If a news media firm is using Wikipedia as a source, and not citing the source, it means they're trying to pass the information as their own investigative work. Granted, that information was provided freely, so it may not be commercial theft. Still, it's at best amoral and impolite. At worst it's intellectual theft on a philosophical level. News agencies shouldn't be raked over the hot coals for it, but they should be snickered at: it's bad form.
There are places in Wikipedia where this is also happening. Any time you see a place in a Wiki page that says something like this it means the page contains information that doesn't have references to back it up. Some may argue such information as common knowledge but the volunteer editing staff of Wiki tends to frown upon that. They like to have as much of Wiki citable as possible, so they can someday be seen in a more respectable light. People are often claiming that Wikipedia's not dependable or "truthy" enough. I find that to be bogus. Wikipedia goes above and beyond the expectations of any volunteer effort. I find their information at least as dependable as any conventional or popular commercially viable news organization, and I don't think anyone involved in Wiki is making a red cent out of it.
The point isn't about money but a resemblance of respect. If all the journalists today who actually utilize Wikipedia even remotely were to acknowledge this, it would put Wiki on the proverbial map more significantly. At present it's often treated at best like a stepchild from a former marriage who rarely misbehaves. However, most journalists who use Wikipedia and other similar sources fear that if they acknowledged that, it would lessen their perceived credibility, because Wikipedia's treated more like a taking of the minutes around the global water cooler than a potential source of credible information. We all know it's better than the water cooler. Few people in places of influence want to readily admit that - they might lose face.
Wikipedia deserves more respect in the media, and from you guys who dismiss it as not "truthy" enough. Bollocks. Then again, I think MeFi deserves more acknowledgement than Fark or Slashdot in today's media, and I rarely hear MeFi mentioned at all offline. God knows who lurks here. ...you know who you are though.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:51 AM on October 9, 2006
There are places in Wikipedia where this is also happening. Any time you see a place in a Wiki page that says something like this it means the page contains information that doesn't have references to back it up. Some may argue such information as common knowledge but the volunteer editing staff of Wiki tends to frown upon that. They like to have as much of Wiki citable as possible, so they can someday be seen in a more respectable light. People are often claiming that Wikipedia's not dependable or "truthy" enough. I find that to be bogus. Wikipedia goes above and beyond the expectations of any volunteer effort. I find their information at least as dependable as any conventional or popular commercially viable news organization, and I don't think anyone involved in Wiki is making a red cent out of it.
The point isn't about money but a resemblance of respect. If all the journalists today who actually utilize Wikipedia even remotely were to acknowledge this, it would put Wiki on the proverbial map more significantly. At present it's often treated at best like a stepchild from a former marriage who rarely misbehaves. However, most journalists who use Wikipedia and other similar sources fear that if they acknowledged that, it would lessen their perceived credibility, because Wikipedia's treated more like a taking of the minutes around the global water cooler than a potential source of credible information. We all know it's better than the water cooler. Few people in places of influence want to readily admit that - they might lose face.
Wikipedia deserves more respect in the media, and from you guys who dismiss it as not "truthy" enough. Bollocks. Then again, I think MeFi deserves more acknowledgement than Fark or Slashdot in today's media, and I rarely hear MeFi mentioned at all offline. God knows who lurks here. ...you know who you are though.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:51 AM on October 9, 2006
Wikipedia rules. That said, Wikipedia should never be quoted, nor should any other encyclopedia. Read an effing book or article. You know, the ones that are often cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia entries.
posted by unknowncommand at 8:17 AM on October 9, 2006
posted by unknowncommand at 8:17 AM on October 9, 2006
The point isn't about money but a resemblance of respect. If all the journalists today who actually utilize Wikipedia even remotely were to acknowledge this, it would put Wiki on the proverbial map more significantly. At present it's often treated at best like a stepchild from a former marriage who rarely misbehaves.
So true. I feel like it was only yesterday when the New York Times finally acknowlaged this "blog thing".
posted by juliarothbort at 8:49 AM on October 9, 2006
So true. I feel like it was only yesterday when the New York Times finally acknowlaged this "blog thing".
posted by juliarothbort at 8:49 AM on October 9, 2006
ZachsMind writes "I find their information at least as dependable as any conventional or popular commercially viable news organization.."
I think in both forums it is an article by article case as to quality and accuracy. I find each as dependable as the strength of the material I'm reading at the time.
posted by peacay at 8:58 AM on October 9, 2006
I think in both forums it is an article by article case as to quality and accuracy. I find each as dependable as the strength of the material I'm reading at the time.
posted by peacay at 8:58 AM on October 9, 2006
ZachsMind. Sure, Wikipedia is useful. But the accuracy thing remains a real problem. This is not as you say bollocks: it is something I encounter more often than not when I use Wikipedia.
As for the attribution thing, well, while I kind of see your point, writers don't cite the encyclopedia Britannica, the electronic cuttings library, Who's Who or the dozen or so reference sources they might consult in the course of writing a feature.
While this may seem sort of unfair, if you are using a number of sources, it is totally impractical. If you draw very heavily on one source, well, sure you should cite it whether it's wikipedia or whatever. For myself I don't think I can ever imagine writing a piece that draws only on information found in Wikipedia.
For all this, I have written pieces for UK nationals which featured both Wikipedia and Metafilter and included interviews with their founders. I enjoy both.
posted by rhymer at 9:14 AM on October 9, 2006
As for the attribution thing, well, while I kind of see your point, writers don't cite the encyclopedia Britannica, the electronic cuttings library, Who's Who or the dozen or so reference sources they might consult in the course of writing a feature.
While this may seem sort of unfair, if you are using a number of sources, it is totally impractical. If you draw very heavily on one source, well, sure you should cite it whether it's wikipedia or whatever. For myself I don't think I can ever imagine writing a piece that draws only on information found in Wikipedia.
For all this, I have written pieces for UK nationals which featured both Wikipedia and Metafilter and included interviews with their founders. I enjoy both.
posted by rhymer at 9:14 AM on October 9, 2006
Does it count as plagiarism if they give a cite, but otherwise lift the whole sentence verbatim from the source material?
If the copied sentence is not in quotation marks but is cited, yes it is plagiarism, because the reader is left with the impressions that the words are the authors own.
As to Wikipedia and respectability, I think the ground is shifting very quickly. I teach history in college and my students use Wikipedia all the time. I find most of articles are quite good--except when we get to some controversial aspect of history, or a topic where the interpretations are changing. Still, I have gotten to the point where in my online classes I will link to a Wikipedia page to give students some background for their readings. I also get a ton of shit from other academics when I mention assigning Wikipedia. I
think Wikipedia will gain more mainstream acceptance, but it will take a few years yet.
posted by LarryC at 9:18 AM on October 9, 2006
If the copied sentence is not in quotation marks but is cited, yes it is plagiarism, because the reader is left with the impressions that the words are the authors own.
As to Wikipedia and respectability, I think the ground is shifting very quickly. I teach history in college and my students use Wikipedia all the time. I find most of articles are quite good--except when we get to some controversial aspect of history, or a topic where the interpretations are changing. Still, I have gotten to the point where in my online classes I will link to a Wikipedia page to give students some background for their readings. I also get a ton of shit from other academics when I mention assigning Wikipedia. I
think Wikipedia will gain more mainstream acceptance, but it will take a few years yet.
posted by LarryC at 9:18 AM on October 9, 2006
A couple of points:
- All text on Wikipedia is released under the GFDL. This can't be done when WKPD/its contributors don't own the copyright in the first place, so copying text into Wikipedia from other sources is against Wikipedia's policies.
- The GFDL requires attribution, so lifting text straight from Wikipedia without it is straightforward copyright infringement.
I've seen and fixed quite a few articles were press releases or other websites have been pasted straight into Wikipedia (it's usually pretty obvious - no links and weird formatting).
The thing that currently bugs me most about Wikipedia is how much seems to be written by white male American loners. Articles about female celebrities/romantic movies/etc are often unreadably snarky and tech topics have this horrible Slashdot-dweeb slant and vocabulary.
(first person that tells me to fix them myself gets a kick in the face)
posted by cillit bang at 9:44 AM on October 9, 2006
- All text on Wikipedia is released under the GFDL. This can't be done when WKPD/its contributors don't own the copyright in the first place, so copying text into Wikipedia from other sources is against Wikipedia's policies.
- The GFDL requires attribution, so lifting text straight from Wikipedia without it is straightforward copyright infringement.
I've seen and fixed quite a few articles were press releases or other websites have been pasted straight into Wikipedia (it's usually pretty obvious - no links and weird formatting).
The thing that currently bugs me most about Wikipedia is how much seems to be written by white male American loners. Articles about female celebrities/romantic movies/etc are often unreadably snarky and tech topics have this horrible Slashdot-dweeb slant and vocabulary.
(first person that tells me to fix them myself gets a kick in the face)
posted by cillit bang at 9:44 AM on October 9, 2006
How many Wikipedia articles are plagiarized from other sources I wonder?
My favourite Wikipedia lift is the map for India, which is basically a coloured-in version of the CIA's own (admittedly public domain) map...
posted by runkelfinker at 10:20 AM on October 9, 2006
My favourite Wikipedia lift is the map for India, which is basically a coloured-in version of the CIA's own (admittedly public domain) map...
posted by runkelfinker at 10:20 AM on October 9, 2006
Please, journalists, plagiarize Wikipedia. I don't even care if use proper attribution.
What exactly is the proper attribution for Wikipedia? If I'm writing a report and refer to a conventional source, then I write something like ("Article title", BBC News, 18th Sept 2006).
But Wikipedia is in a constant state of flux - so do I write: (Wikipedia English edition, 13:23 GMT 18th Sept 2006), or (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attribution&diff=78831545&oldid=69988138), or what?
posted by runkelfinker at 10:31 AM on October 9, 2006
What exactly is the proper attribution for Wikipedia? If I'm writing a report and refer to a conventional source, then I write something like ("Article title", BBC News, 18th Sept 2006).
But Wikipedia is in a constant state of flux - so do I write: (Wikipedia English edition, 13:23 GMT 18th Sept 2006), or (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attribution&diff=78831545&oldid=69988138), or what?
posted by runkelfinker at 10:31 AM on October 9, 2006
My favourite Wikipedia lift...
Huh? Those maps don't look anything alike.
posted by yeti at 11:06 AM on October 9, 2006
Huh? Those maps don't look anything alike.
posted by yeti at 11:06 AM on October 9, 2006
Good old Wikipedia: The neutrality of this map is disputed.
posted by smackfu at 11:55 AM on October 9, 2006
posted by smackfu at 11:55 AM on October 9, 2006
runkelfinker - There is a link in the left column toolbox that reads "Cite this article". It should answer your question, I hope.
posted by Fruny at 12:57 PM on October 9, 2006
posted by Fruny at 12:57 PM on October 9, 2006
What exactly is the proper attribution for Wikipedia?
Newspapers, of course, don't do full citation. As someone who occasionally writes for them, if I was quoting directly from Wikipedia - which I wouldn't do unless I was writing about Wikipedia, but let's pretend - I'd probably say something like: ". . . which, according to its current Wikipedia entry, is 'obsessed with elephants.'"
As a journalist, I actually use Wikipedia - and/or Google generally - to sketch in details on the fly. I'm in mid-sentence, I think, "When was the Franco-Prussian War, anyway?" I go find the date, plug it in, and I verify with other sources afterward.
The important distinction here, though, is between direct quotation and extracting data from a reference text. If I used Wikipedia to verify that the siege of Paris lasted from Sept 1870 to Jan 1871 and resulted in Prussian victory, I wouldn't make a note of the source, any more than I would if I'd gotten it from an encyclopedia or desk reference. If, however, I for some reason decided to phrase the thing precisely as written at Wikipedia - "The Siege of Paris (September 19, 1870–January 28, 1871) brought about the final defeat of the French Army during the Franco-Prussian War" - I suppose I'd put it in quotes and such, though the phrasing is such a straightforward string of public-domain facts that I think it'd be presumptuous as hell for anyone to claim authorship of that sentence.
Good old Wikipedia: The neutrality of this map is disputed.
FYI, this isn't a Wikipedia thing - the vast majority of maps of South Asia contain odd qualifying phrases. India, for example, won't allow a guidebook to be published and desseminated within India if it acknowledges Pakistan's territorial claim to even "Pakistan-controlled Kashmir."
posted by gompa at 1:18 PM on October 9, 2006
Newspapers, of course, don't do full citation. As someone who occasionally writes for them, if I was quoting directly from Wikipedia - which I wouldn't do unless I was writing about Wikipedia, but let's pretend - I'd probably say something like: ". . . which, according to its current Wikipedia entry, is 'obsessed with elephants.'"
As a journalist, I actually use Wikipedia - and/or Google generally - to sketch in details on the fly. I'm in mid-sentence, I think, "When was the Franco-Prussian War, anyway?" I go find the date, plug it in, and I verify with other sources afterward.
The important distinction here, though, is between direct quotation and extracting data from a reference text. If I used Wikipedia to verify that the siege of Paris lasted from Sept 1870 to Jan 1871 and resulted in Prussian victory, I wouldn't make a note of the source, any more than I would if I'd gotten it from an encyclopedia or desk reference. If, however, I for some reason decided to phrase the thing precisely as written at Wikipedia - "The Siege of Paris (September 19, 1870–January 28, 1871) brought about the final defeat of the French Army during the Franco-Prussian War" - I suppose I'd put it in quotes and such, though the phrasing is such a straightforward string of public-domain facts that I think it'd be presumptuous as hell for anyone to claim authorship of that sentence.
Good old Wikipedia: The neutrality of this map is disputed.
FYI, this isn't a Wikipedia thing - the vast majority of maps of South Asia contain odd qualifying phrases. India, for example, won't allow a guidebook to be published and desseminated within India if it acknowledges Pakistan's territorial claim to even "Pakistan-controlled Kashmir."
posted by gompa at 1:18 PM on October 9, 2006
(e.g. The Rough Guide's India map has this at the very bottom: "The external boundary of the map on these pages is neither purported to be correct nor authentic by Survey of India directives. Publisher.")
posted by gompa at 1:21 PM on October 9, 2006
posted by gompa at 1:21 PM on October 9, 2006
So how about plagiarism by the traditional media of sites like metafilter?
That happens a lot in the Netherlands in newspapers and magazines. Mainly in the discursive 'bits and pieces' part.
posted by jouke at 2:00 PM on October 9, 2006
That happens a lot in the Netherlands in newspapers and magazines. Mainly in the discursive 'bits and pieces' part.
posted by jouke at 2:00 PM on October 9, 2006
Some people above seem to be confused between academic writing, where you need to back up almost every little thing you say with a citation, and journalistic writing, where (as rhymer and gompa say) it's quite appropriate to extract information from reference materials without citing them.
What Mediawatch caught this guy doing was actually lifting slabs of text from Wikipedia without attribution. That is plagiarism for a journalist as much as for an academic. Using Wikipedia as a reference is not.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 2:59 PM on October 9, 2006
What Mediawatch caught this guy doing was actually lifting slabs of text from Wikipedia without attribution. That is plagiarism for a journalist as much as for an academic. Using Wikipedia as a reference is not.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 2:59 PM on October 9, 2006
Actually lifting slabs of text from Wikipedia without attribution is wrong. That happens a lot in the Netherlands in newspapers and magazines. The important distinction here, though, is between direct quotation and extracting data from a reference text.
Plagiarism is the practice of (dishonestly) claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created, such as when a person incorporates material from someone else's work into his own work without attributing it. For other uses, see Plagiarism (disambiguation).
posted by Smedleyman at 3:36 PM on October 9, 2006
Plagiarism is the practice of (dishonestly) claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created, such as when a person incorporates material from someone else's work into his own work without attributing it. For other uses, see Plagiarism (disambiguation).
posted by Smedleyman at 3:36 PM on October 9, 2006
It wasn't clear from the transcript - is the journalist, Tom Winterbourn, in the running for this year's Barra Award? (aka the Campbell Reid Perpetual Trophy for the Brazen Recycling of Other People's Work).
More on the wonderful Media Watch, including the story of the Barra at wikipedia.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:16 PM on October 9, 2006
More on the wonderful Media Watch, including the story of the Barra at wikipedia.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:16 PM on October 9, 2006
Smedleyman is right. Actually lifting slabs of text from Wikipedia without attribution is wrong. That happens a lot in the Netherlands in newspapers and magazines. The important distinction here, though, is between direct quotation and extracting data from a reference text.
Plagiarism is the practice of (dishonestly) claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created, such as when a person incorporates material from someone else's work into his own work without attributing it.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:26 PM on October 9, 2006
Plagiarism is the practice of (dishonestly) claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created, such as when a person incorporates material from someone else's work into his own work without attributing it.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:26 PM on October 9, 2006
I love Media Watch. The segment last night on rugby league scores being lifted was a corker too. Sportsdata purposely posted little errors on the official NRLstats website to expose plagiarists. Cadability reported the same (incorrect) results and when questioned, replied: "We would ask what proof you have that the mistake was in fact deliberate and not a genuine mistake on the part of NRLstats?" Sportal also took the bait and when questioned, replied: "Any attempt to equate a random use of public domain statistics with plagiarism is utterly misplaced." Golden.
posted by tellurian at 5:22 PM on October 9, 2006
posted by tellurian at 5:22 PM on October 9, 2006
I do wish Stuart Littlemore was still presenting it though. He had the right level of facetiousness.
posted by tellurian at 5:26 PM on October 9, 2006
posted by tellurian at 5:26 PM on October 9, 2006
Yes, Stuart Littlemore was the best. Being such a high-powered lawyer, I particularly loved the way he would nuance things with raised eyebrows, careful emphasis on words, and so on. It seemed like he was always skating close to libel or defamation, but carefully expressing things in such a way that he could defend himself against any such charges. Very wry, very dry.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:38 PM on October 9, 2006
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:38 PM on October 9, 2006
This reminds me, yesterday I was flicking through tv channels when I saw a show about the Scissor Sisters performing on Radio 1.
The DJ was introducing the band (who were in a neighbouring studio), he gave a little background about the group and introduced each artist by name etc. In front of the DJ was a monitor very clearly displaying this page.
posted by Olli at 6:45 PM on October 9, 2006
The DJ was introducing the band (who were in a neighbouring studio), he gave a little background about the group and introduced each artist by name etc. In front of the DJ was a monitor very clearly displaying this page.
posted by Olli at 6:45 PM on October 9, 2006
So how about plagiarism by the traditional media of sites like metafilter?
I see this all the time - mainly in the Sunday papers. At least once in every paper, I see something that I read during the week on the Web, lifted verbatim without attribution. To a lesser extent, this happens in the so-called "current affairs" TV shows, who often take the latest story doing the rounds of the Web and present it as breaking news.
Welcome to the new media.
posted by dg at 7:15 PM on October 9, 2006
I see this all the time - mainly in the Sunday papers. At least once in every paper, I see something that I read during the week on the Web, lifted verbatim without attribution. To a lesser extent, this happens in the so-called "current affairs" TV shows, who often take the latest story doing the rounds of the Web and present it as breaking news.
Welcome to the new media.
posted by dg at 7:15 PM on October 9, 2006
rhymer writes "VulcanMike, I have to disagree with you. Although to be fair, I think we are coming at this from very different places. I work in the UK media and I write mainly about business not politics. "
My apologies, especially for the delay in responding. In my exuberance for decrying the US media, I pulled a little American arrogance of my own (especially since we were discussing a AU article) and failed to mention that I was referring to US publications UK media I have no issue with and yearn for it in certain ways, given that the idealistic journalism school rhetoric in the US is at odds with the commercial reality of journalism in practice here.
rhymer writes "However I do take your point, that this is not the case with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh others who use facts selectively and interchangeably with opinions."
To further elaborate my issue, then, I am referring not to the mainstream "entertainment" of Coulter and Limbaugh, but more seriously to the pages of respectfully regarded publications such as the Washington Post and the New York Times.
I'm about 10 years behind on PR/media training practices for public figures, but I have to assume that at least some folks are being told that more outlandishly partisan claims tend to shift the overall tone of coverage towards that partisan viewpoint due to the media's effort to be "balanced" without any applied judgement.
The most recent example of this in the US is the Dennis Hastert claim that the current Foley teen page scandal was a Democratic plot. This CNN article from Sunday is a good example (though, I know, is not one of the publications mentioned aboce). Complete reporting of Republican accusations that the Foley disclosure was a Democratic ploy with not one mention of the fact that there has been no evidence of said ploy and that journalists themselves disclosed last week that their source was tied to the Republicans.
Rather than looking at news in the context of the overall story, US journalists have skewed far more towards simply reporting the comments of both sides with equal weight. A story based on fundamentally balanced truth ("There's no evidence to back this up,") rather than locally balanced truth ("It is a fact that he accused Democrats") could never go on for 20 paragraphs on completely unfounded accusations, let alone go on without at least mentioning that there was no evidence. But there you have it -- 20 paragraphs of comments made because of a knowledge on the part of politicans that the press will report it on equal footing with contrasting views or in this case without any contrasting views whatsoever.
posted by VulcanMike at 6:03 PM on October 10, 2006
My apologies, especially for the delay in responding. In my exuberance for decrying the US media, I pulled a little American arrogance of my own (especially since we were discussing a AU article) and failed to mention that I was referring to US publications UK media I have no issue with and yearn for it in certain ways, given that the idealistic journalism school rhetoric in the US is at odds with the commercial reality of journalism in practice here.
rhymer writes "However I do take your point, that this is not the case with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh others who use facts selectively and interchangeably with opinions."
To further elaborate my issue, then, I am referring not to the mainstream "entertainment" of Coulter and Limbaugh, but more seriously to the pages of respectfully regarded publications such as the Washington Post and the New York Times.
I'm about 10 years behind on PR/media training practices for public figures, but I have to assume that at least some folks are being told that more outlandishly partisan claims tend to shift the overall tone of coverage towards that partisan viewpoint due to the media's effort to be "balanced" without any applied judgement.
The most recent example of this in the US is the Dennis Hastert claim that the current Foley teen page scandal was a Democratic plot. This CNN article from Sunday is a good example (though, I know, is not one of the publications mentioned aboce). Complete reporting of Republican accusations that the Foley disclosure was a Democratic ploy with not one mention of the fact that there has been no evidence of said ploy and that journalists themselves disclosed last week that their source was tied to the Republicans.
Rather than looking at news in the context of the overall story, US journalists have skewed far more towards simply reporting the comments of both sides with equal weight. A story based on fundamentally balanced truth ("There's no evidence to back this up,") rather than locally balanced truth ("It is a fact that he accused Democrats") could never go on for 20 paragraphs on completely unfounded accusations, let alone go on without at least mentioning that there was no evidence. But there you have it -- 20 paragraphs of comments made because of a knowledge on the part of politicans that the press will report it on equal footing with contrasting views or in this case without any contrasting views whatsoever.
posted by VulcanMike at 6:03 PM on October 10, 2006
Here's my newspaper example, even more current from Wednesday's edition of the Washington Post.
(And happy 1,000th post, me. I'd like to thank the mathowie.)
posted by VulcanMike at 9:40 PM on October 10, 2006
(And happy 1,000th post, me. I'd like to thank the mathowie.)
posted by VulcanMike at 9:40 PM on October 10, 2006
« Older Incredible Mouth Band | Battle of the Galleries Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I work in the traditional media and while I find Wikipedia useful resource, its inaccuracies mean that I always cross check Wikipedia information with a couple of other sources: it just doesn't have enough truthiness to use unverified.
Besides, this guy should be carpetted for laziness. I mean, how difficult is it to paraphrase what you're lifting?
posted by rhymer at 5:14 AM on October 9, 2006