Should I be flattered or frightened?

[parallaxicality]

As most of you who have heard me talk for more than five minutes know, I am currently engaged in Wikipedia's Solar System project. Due to the demands of some particularly pedantic individuals in Wikipedia's upper levels, this project has grown from ~10 articles into a vast encyclopedia within the encyclopedia which may top out at over 100 pages. It's frustrating as hell, but one thing it has left me with is a comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia's Solar System-related articles.

So imagine my surprise when I pick up the NewScientist's latest article on the 6 great mysteries of the Solar System. Upon reading it, I found that at least half of its facts, including many rather obscure ones, were also in Wikipedia's Solar System articles.

So. Should I be happy that my work is being referenced in a supposedly scientifically credible publication, or terrified that a supposedly scientifically credible publication is relying on Wikipedia for citation?

[Jeff Root]

I would suppose that they are telling readers where they can read more
on the subject, rather than telling them where they learned about it.
But you aren't me. You should write to them and ask.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[parallaxicality]

No; I didn't mean that they credited Wikipedia- I meant that the facts presented in the article were the exact same facts mentioned in various Solar System-related Wikipedia articles- too many to be a coincidence.

I've seen this before, to the point where words I've written have appeared unquoted in news articles, but I've never seen it in a scientific magazine before.

[Swift]

So. Should I be happy that my work is being referenced in a supposedly scientifically credible publication, or terrified that a supposedly scientifically credible publication is relying on Wikipedia for citation?
When can't you be both?

[Fazor]

I've seen this before, to the point where words I've written have appeared unquoted in news articles, but I've never seen it in a scientific magazine before.
They have a word for that. It rhymes with 'slaygerism'. ;)

[parallaxicality]

Well that's the beauty of Wikipedia; you can't legally plagiarise it because all its contributions are unattributed.

[Fazor]

I just wanted to say 'slaygerism' ... 'caus that's going in the Fazictionary.
Slaygerism. n. - To slay a victim in the same manner as another killer, without proper attribution to original slaying. See also- 'Copy cat killer'
v. Slaygerize.

Anyway, even if it's not legally plagiarism, I know plenty of colleges that will fail you for doing so on a paper. It's still poor form.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Well that's the beauty of Wikipedia; you can't legally plagiarise it because all its contributions are unattributed.

Why is that? I can see that maybe it's the case that there is nobody that can sue you, but if you pass off someone else's work as your own, that's plagiarism regardless of the identity of the author(s).

As to the OP, it might be worth it to drop a line to the editor of the New Scientist.

Nick

[Gillianren]

If you pass off a poem written by "Anonymous" as your own, it's still plagiarism. Anonymity does not release that particular burden. If you're claiming someone's words as your own, it doesn't matter who they are, or even if you know who they are. It's still plagiarism.

[BigDon]

Okay I'm missing something here.

Are we are talking about copying facts or passages?

I've seen just about every science guide, written by different authors, say Earth is the third planet out from the Sun. Can't say one man plagerized the other. A fact is a fact.

[parallaxicality]

Two separate issues. Yes, I have seen passages I have written appear unquoted in news articles, but that is not the case here. What has happened here is that the NewScientist has used a number of highly esoteric facts, such as a reference to Halley's Comet attributed to the 1st century rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah and the legend that the comet was supposedly excommunicated Pope Callixtus III, that occur in Wikipedia. Incidentally, I have not been able to back up that legend with a citation.

[ngc3314]

Why is that? I can see that maybe it's the case that there is nobody that can sue you, but if you pass off someone else's work as your own, that's plagiarism regardless of the identity of the author(s).


Yep, or at least our dean thought so. I had a student last year had in an extra-credit paper which was copy/pasted for three pages straight from Wikipedia. The best part was that this Wikipeda article cited, as one of its online sources, my web material. Only one step from urban legend. (I did have a bad moment realizing that an enterprising student might claim to have written the article in question, requiring a detailed check of the history of the article).