Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Wikipedia is a fine, fine resourceFollow

#1 Aug 13 2008 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
...for Presidential candidates to plagiarize.

Quote:
First instance:

one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)

vs.

one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)

Second instance:

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. (Wikipedia)

vs.

After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises. (McCain)


Now, okay, maybe McCain's speechwriter also wrote the Wiki entries. I dunno.

I'm just laughin'.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2 Aug 13 2008 at 8:48 AM Rating: Decent
What's the big deal? He used facts from a source? Would it be better if he changed the names or numbers around?

I'm no McCain supporter, but this seems like a stretch. I don't know that I'd even call those comparisons a good example of paraphrasing.

Edited, Aug 13th 2008 11:47am by BrownDuck
#3 Aug 13 2008 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Apparently you can use Wiki as credible debate source. Elderon, the old fool, was wrong.

Edited, Aug 13th 2008 1:48pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#4 Aug 13 2008 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
BrownDuck the Wise wrote:
What's the big deal? He used facts from a source? Would it be better if he changed the names or numbers around?

I'm no McCain supporter, but this seems like a stretch.


Using facts from a source: fine and dandy. Using facts from a source without attribution: plagiarism.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#5 Aug 13 2008 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Change you can Xerox!!

OMG WHY ISN'T THE MEDIA ON THIS IT MUST BE CONSPIRACY THE MEDIA LOVES MCCAIN
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Aug 13 2008 at 8:54 AM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
Sam wrote:
Using facts from a source: fine and dandy. Using facts from a source without attribution: plagiarism.


Also, Wiki is far from reliable. Argument on the street, fine. Someone running for the highest office in a country, not so much.

Edited, Aug 13th 2008 12:52pm by Paskil
#7 Aug 13 2008 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I'm a celebrity on wiki, if that gives you any indication of wiki's reliability.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#8 Aug 13 2008 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Also true, although the speech writer could have cribbed the "facts" directly from the attributed sources rather than straight from Wikipedia.

Either way if you're going to use someone else's words, you'd best attribute them. There are better ways to appear knowledgeable, though.

Well, for relatively intelligent people.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#9 Aug 13 2008 at 9:04 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

What's the big deal? He used facts from a source?


The source was Wikipedia, that's the big deal. It's one step up from a homeless guy with a sandwich sign.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Aug 13 2008 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

What's the big deal? He used facts from a source?


The source was Wikipedia, that's the big deal. It's one step up from a homeless guy with a sandwich sign.



Who was it we learned on wiki was also a trumpet player or some such nonsense? hahahaha, I'm so glad we spent an hour doing research to figure out what the hell that was all about.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#11 Aug 13 2008 at 9:17 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Who was it we learned on wiki was also a trumpet player or some such nonsense?


Peter O'Toole. His Wiki said he played mandolin on a few Indigo Girls albums.

Hahahaha.

He was being confused with another guy with the same name from this band:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hothouse_Flowers

IF THE BAND EVEN EXISTS!!!! Sure, Wiki says so...but....



____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Aug 13 2008 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I'm glad that the McCain staffers don't frequent those communist strongholds that you homosexuals and Europeans call "libraries." As for me, I am a traditionalist and get my world history from the trivia section of the local penny saver.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#13 Aug 13 2008 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Amateurs. I get all the detailed facts I need reading the answers of trivial pursuit questions.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#14 Aug 13 2008 at 9:42 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Lol, this is kinda funny. Now if the Obama campaign had had their wits about them, they would have been seeding wiki with bogus info.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#15 Aug 13 2008 at 10:17 AM Rating: Decent
Paskil wrote:
Sam wrote:
Using facts from a source: fine and dandy. Using facts from a source without attribution: plagiarism.


Also, Wiki is far from reliable. Argument on the street, fine. Someone running for the highest office in a country, not so much.


This argument is increasingly annoying. Any reputable article in Wikipedia cites its own sources to back up the information it provides. Even in the absence of a cite on Wikipedia, does anyone really intend to imply that Russia did NOT annex Georgia or that it was NOT freed during the collapse of the Soviet Union? Are you going to directly challenge the fact that Georgia has had periods of unrest and economic hardship? The items being quoted for the most part are general historic knowledge. The only really debatable statement highlighted in the McCain speech was that Georgia was one of the first countries to adopt Christianity as an official religion (the wiki article has no cites), but even that claim can be verified with solid documentation elsewhere:

http://countrystudies.us/georgia/27.htm wrote:
The wide variety of peoples inhabiting Georgia has meant a correspondingly rich array of active religions. The dominant religion is Christianity, and the Georgian Orthodox Church is by far the largest church. The conversion of the Georgians in A.D. 330 placed them among the first peoples to accept Christianity.

--
Glenn E. Curtis, ed. Georgia: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1994.


Basically, Wikipedia, like any other resource, is a wealth of good information and should not be so easily discredited.
#16 Aug 13 2008 at 10:20 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Basically, Wikipedia, like any other resource, is a wealth of good information and should not be so easily discredited.


Nope, fucking neigh useless. There have been 30,000 metaanlysises done on this.

Forgive me, I forgot who I was dealing with. Not ACTUALLY 30,000 but many.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Aug 13 2008 at 10:22 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:

Basically, Wikipedia, like any other resource, is a wealth of good information and should not be so easily discredited.


Nope, fucking neigh useless.


There you go being all facetious again.
#18 Aug 13 2008 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Also, maybe this means that McCain has advanced from just understanding how to read emails to now being able to surf the net. Next up, the rest of the Senate Commerce committee are going to start receive funny but touching anecdotes in their inboxes.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#19 Aug 13 2008 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Commander Annabella wrote:
Also, maybe this means that McCain has advanced from just understanding how to read emails to now being able to surf the net. Next up, the rest of the Senate Commerce committee are going to start receive funny but touching anecdotes in their inboxes.
What do you think will happen when he gets the Viagra spam? Will he be looking for who leaked it?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#20 Aug 13 2008 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Commander Annabella wrote:
Also, maybe this means that McCain has advanced from just understanding how to read emails to now being able to surf the net. Next up, the rest of the Senate Commerce committee are going to start receive funny but touching anecdotes in their inboxes.
"My fellow Americans, I have found a way to solve our economic crisis. Keep this in confidence, but I am in communications with a mister Ngumbe Mlatho who happens to be the vice-president of the Nigerian Petroleum Economic Bank..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Aug 13 2008 at 10:37 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Come on GUYZ at least McCain isn't making stuff up!!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#22 Aug 13 2008 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Any reputable article in Wikipedia cites its own sources to back up the information it provides.


And the disreputable ones?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#23 Aug 13 2008 at 12:53 PM Rating: Decent
First statement is from: Sketches of Georgian Church History by Theodore Edward Dowling

The only opinionated (interesting) part of the second statement has already been changed on wiki. One could go back to the version quoted above and find out if it had references.

What if McCain's people checked the references and found them accurate? Or if they read the original references and better paraphrased them then the wiki article did? It's so general you wouldn't need to give a citation, at least in the sciences. I've heard the humanities are much more **** about it. Never heard if the social sciences are.
#24 Aug 13 2008 at 1:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Not getting the illogic you guys are using. Who cares if what McCain said matches what Wiki says. Does it also match what a dozen other sources say on the same subject? Does it mean that the statements are false?


Quite a stretch there IMO. "OMG! He said something! Wiki says the same thing! Not all Wiki information is true. Therefore his statement must be false!!!". Ridiculous...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Aug 13 2008 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Who cares if what McCain said matches what Wiki says.
Well, in thoery, the same people who cared that five seconds of Obama speech matched five seconds of Patrick's speech should care.

As I said, I am DEEPLY disturbed that the Obama incident got constant mention from the mainstream media and this has gotten none. Never before have I seen such obvious bias for McCain and we should be deeply suspicious of what else the MSM is hiding to protect the senator from AZ.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Aug 13 2008 at 1:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
yossarian wrote:
What if McCain's people checked the references and found them accurate? Or if they read the original references and better paraphrased them then the wiki article did? It's so general you wouldn't need to give a citation, at least in the sciences. I've heard the humanities are much more **** about it. Never heard if the social sciences are.


What if they never looked at Wiki at all? Ever consider that perhaps the person who wrote that section of the wiki page referenced the same sources that McCain's people did? There's some pretty absurd assumption going on here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 187 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (187)