PDA

View Full Version : McCain plagiarising Wikipedia?


Geck-o-Lizard
25-08-08, 21:12
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_investigates_claim_McCain_plagiarized_spe ech_from_Wikipedia

Drone
25-08-08, 21:14
can't believe he uses wikipedia

Legend of Lara
25-08-08, 21:23
Wow. He spends his time wisely. :rolleyes:

Geck-o-Lizard
25-08-08, 21:27
To be fair, he doesn't know how to turn a computer on, let alone steal stuff from Wikipedia. It's his underlings at fault for this. ;)

Cochrane
25-08-08, 21:27
Interesting question: Does "public reading" constitute distribution or copying as specified by article 2 of the GNU FDL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html)? Could be, but it doesn't mention it explicitly, and there are lots of associated problems (if it were, he'd have to recite the entire GNU FDL at the end, as I see it). So I'm not sure whether this is truly a license violation.

SamReeves
25-08-08, 21:29
It's a dirty trick from Obama! *snorts*

Honestly, wiki is a impartial source? :whi:

Drone
25-08-08, 21:35
It's a dirty trick from Obama! *snorts*

Honestly, wiki is a impartial source? :whi:

lol and what if in the end of his speech he said that it was taken from wikipedia

stereopathic
25-08-08, 21:49
at least he didn't say something like, "The State of Georgia (IPA: /ˈdʒɔɹdʒə/) is a state in the United States and was one of the original Thirteen Colonies that revolted against British rule in the American Revolution. It was the last of the Thirteen Colonies to be established as a colony, in 1733"

heeheehee!

i'm so surprised he and Obama are even right now. McCain has about zero appeal for me. not that Obama has much more.

i can haz republik of texis?

rickybazire
25-08-08, 21:56
at least he didn't say something like, "The State of Georgia (IPA: /ˈdʒɔɹdʒə/) is a state in the United States and was one of the original Thirteen Colonies that revolted against British rule in the American Revolution. It was the last of the Thirteen Colonies to be established as a colony, in 1733"

heeheehee!

i'm so surprised he and Obama are even right now. McCain has about zero appeal for me. not that Obama has much more.

i can haz republik of texis?

Haha, that firt paragraph is brilliant!

As for the last sentence, it's probably been posted before but...

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q216/tnpminor/59.jpg

Crimson Tears
25-08-08, 21:58
Wow. He spends his time wisely. :rolleyes:
Lol.
I can't believe he's useing Wiki! :eek:

Paul H
25-08-08, 22:19
Aw, c'mon, give the guy a break. Just because he isn't as smart as Bush ... :D

Angel666
26-08-08, 00:00
I know a guy who actually thought that Russia had invaded Atlanta. I am not kidding. It was very sad.

Ward Dragon
26-08-08, 00:52
The actual examples in that article didn't seem like plagiarism to me. I probably would have come up with something similar if I was writing a paper about it and never saw the wiki page. I see this as an attempt to smear McCain before he goes and brings up Biden's plagiarism :whi:

Feather Duster
26-08-08, 00:57
:vlol:

It's all liek he didn't read it before he gave the speech

"... and Atlanta, Georgia, is where Raven Symoné was born... aww whoops "

Encore
26-08-08, 01:14
Aw, c'mon, give the guy a break. Just because he isn't as smart as Bush ... :D

I didn't know one could get lower than that.. :eek:

xMiSsCrOfTx
26-08-08, 02:12
can't believe he uses wikipedia

Bush uses Google! :)

pizzabob18
26-08-08, 03:00
not to get too political, but I really hate McCain...er...McBush...er...the whole Bush administration

Of course, if this campain ad cheating McCain did was discovered by everyone, the media will probably phrase McCain for using "outside sources" whereas, if Obama did the same, the media and papers would harass him and claim he did plagiarism until he'd be shamed upon by all the news stations and would be in trouble in terms of the election.


Again, sorry if I've offended anyone, but I had to get that off my chest :wve:

Goose
26-08-08, 06:02
not to get too political, but I really hate McCain...er...McBush...er...the whole Bush administration

Of course, if this campain ad cheating McCain did was discovered by everyone, the media will probably phrase McCain for using "outside sources" whereas, if Obama did the same, the media and papers would harass him and claim he did plagiarism until he'd be shamed upon by all the news stations and would be in trouble in terms of the election.


Again, sorry if I've offended anyone, but I had to get that off my chest :wve:

Well thats abit far fetched, news chanels take sides, two like Fox will be for McCain and the others will be for Obama.

How can it be plagerism, the wikinews article states itself, "it was very similar" not "it was exactly the same". How many times have books or lectures had the words "Hitler invaded Poland, causing the British government to Declare war in support of the rest of Europe"? Am i plagerising by stating historical facts?

If it was about opinions rather then facts, then maybe it would be.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 12:42
Harass Obama? :vlol::vlol::vlol::vlol: you're joking. The media kisses Obama's ass every chance they get. He gets all the free passes in the world because he's black and a democrat but more so because he's black. Now no flaming on anyone's part, what I said is the truth. My country has serious issues that needed working out, one of which being white guilt that some white folks have. They incorrectly feel guilty about history including the civil war among others. Pathetic and unfortunate.:rolleyes:

Goose
26-08-08, 12:56
Harass Obama? :vlol::vlol::vlol::vlol: you're joking. The media kisses Obama's ass every chance they get. He gets all the free passes in the world because he's black and a democrat but more so because he's black. Now no flaming on anyone's part, what I said is the truth. My country has serious issues that needed working out, one of which being white guilt that some white folks have. They incorrectly feel guilty about history including the civil war among others. Pathetic and unfortunate.:rolleyes:

Actually, quite recently Obama was supposed to visit wounded american soldiers at a hospital in Germany, but when the US army told him that bringing camera crews inside the hospital may upset the patients, and that only him and close aids would be allowed in, he decided that he had 'other engagements' ( http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/25/obama-cancels-visit-to-military-hospital/) He got away with that with barely a word mentioned.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 13:22
Actually, quite recently Obama was supposed to visit wounded american soldiers at a hospital in Germany, but when the US army told him that bringing camera crews inside the hospital may upset the patients, and that only him and close aids would be allowed in, he decided that he had 'other engagements' ( http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/25/obama-cancels-visit-to-military-hospital/) He got away with that with barely a word mentioned.

I did hear about it but the news didn't last long. Like I said, free pass.

SamReeves
26-08-08, 16:42
Actually, quite recently Obama was supposed to visit wounded american soldiers at a hospital in Germany, but when the US army told him that bringing camera crews inside the hospital may upset the patients, and that only him and close aids would be allowed in, he decided that he had 'other engagements' ( http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/25/obama-cancels-visit-to-military-hospital/) He got away with that with barely a word mentioned.

Sounds like the typical a-hole that Obama is.

Drone
26-08-08, 16:44
Sounds like the typical a-hole that Obama is.

visiting your soldiers coz of your own pr?! I think nothing can be so gross as this!

Goose
26-08-08, 16:46
Sounds like the typical a-hole that Obama is.

One interesting thing iv noticed, whether its one of these youtube things or not, is that Obama doesnt have a brith certificate? His actual campaign has relied on one that was posted on a pro-obama bloggers site (or so iv read), which was proved a forgery. Was that for real? Politics on youtube is barely worth taking the time to watch because its so comicaly biased, but i was swayed into believeing this.

visiting your soldiers coz of your own pr?! I think nothing can be so gross as this!

I can, not visiting your soldiers because it wont benefit your PR. The fact that there were to be no cameras should have drawn him to it if he cared.

Even Plutin went to Ossentia to visit wounded russian soldiers, and he's not even president anymore.

SamReeves
26-08-08, 16:48
visiting your soldiers coz of your own pr?! I think nothing can be so gross as this!

Especially in an election year which shows how transparent it is. McCain has been in Iraq, Afghanistan, Walter Reed, and Bethesda many more times than Obama has in non-election years.

Cochrane
26-08-08, 17:42
Well, when any politicians visit injured soldiers you never know whether it's because the politicians care or because they only want to look as if they care, but Obama's move certainly was just about the worst he could do in this case.

haikudasai
26-08-08, 17:49
What is truly sad is:

This moron is going to win.

There are so many people out there that aren't being shown how much of an idiot this guy is because a lot of media outlets are owned by Conservatives that would rather show any type of slip up that Obama makes, and only praise McCain.

That and there are people that vote soley on their religious background and would rather vote republican because it doesn't challenge a lot of the old world beliefs.

Also, please remember that there are so many things wrong inside of the US that a lot of our countrymen would love to see a President that wants to take a huge focus on us. I feel like Obama is the greater of the two to do that.

That and didn't McCain once say he doesn't even do the thinking for his campaign lol.

Sigh.

pizzabob18
26-08-08, 18:01
What is truly sad is:

This moron is going to win.

There are so many people out there that aren't being shown how much of an idiot this guy is because a lot of media outlets are owned by Conservatives that would rather show any type of slip up that Obama makes, and only praise McCain.

That and there are people that vote soley on their religious background and would rather vote republican because it doesn't challenge a lot of the old world beliefs.

Also, please remember that there are so many things wrong inside of the US that a lot of our countrymen would love to see a President that wants to take a huge focus on us. I feel like Obama is the greater of the two to do that.

That and didn't McCain once say he doesn't even do the thinking for his campaign lol.

Sigh.

word! :)

Sadly, this is all probably true

Geck-o-Lizard
26-08-08, 18:01
www.theworstcandidate.com

Drone
26-08-08, 18:11
Especially in an election year which shows how transparent it is. McCain has been in Iraq, Afghanistan, Walter Reed, and Bethesda many more times than Obama has in non-election years.

True. Just don't know how it's all gonna end up. This world definitely needs some worthy leaders

robm_2007
26-08-08, 18:12
To be fair, he doesn't know how to turn a computer on, let alone steal stuff from Wikipedia. It's his underlings at fault for this. ;)

its also his fault for letting them use Wikipedia.

Geck-o-Lizard
26-08-08, 18:13
I doubt he knew. He'd just have said "hay guise, write me a speech plz" and they'd have said "k" and come back the next day with something nicked from half the internet and reworded slightly.

Goose
26-08-08, 18:15
I doubt he knew. He'd just have said "hay guise, write me a speech plz" and they'd have said "k" and come back the next day with something nicked from half the internet and reworded slightly.

Well thats generally how speeches are prepared now, facts and figures.

What got me with obama, was the whole Iraq thing, how he was supposed to end it and all this troop withdrawl stuff, whilst McCain actively said "we will be there as long as it takes, even if it takes 100 years, like in Germany or Korea". The anti McCain jumped on that as a reason to vote against him, yet now obama is saying the exact same thing as McCain about staying till the job is done.

I think that has to be the biggest mistake of his campaign, its not a matter about public school funding, its about ending a war, and he took a massive u-turn.

Drone
26-08-08, 18:19
is it unfashionable now to write your speech on your own? or it's fashionable that underlings ain't responsible

Goose
26-08-08, 18:23
is it unfashionable now to write your speech on your own? or it's fashionable that underlings ain't responsible

Its certainly fasionable to jump to conclusions.

Drone
26-08-08, 18:24
Its certainly fasionable to jump to conclusions.

so what?

Goose
26-08-08, 18:26
so what?

Lol, we dont know if he wrote it or not, and if he didnt, we dont know if Ron Paul or Obama write there speeches or not, so we cant hold it against him.

Drone
26-08-08, 18:32
Lol, we dont know if he wrote it or not, and if he didnt, we dont know if Ron Paul or Obama write there speeches or not, so we cant hold it against him.


ah yeah that's right. all we have is media ....

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 18:44
Sounds like the typical a-hole that Obama is.

Hopefully the a-hole doesn't win, if he does America is ****ed.

Heckler
26-08-08, 18:47
Ooooh Mccain Oven bake chips! Yum!...

Goose
26-08-08, 18:52
Ooooh Mccain Oven bake chips! Yum!...

They did microwave ones aswell.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 18:52
Btw I remember hearing about Michelle Obama saying she's only proud of the recent America, not America as a whole including it's history. Words from a marxist racist.

Heckler
26-08-08, 18:53
They did microwave ones aswell.

And veggies!!! hahaha

Geck-o-Lizard
26-08-08, 18:55
Hopefully the a-hole doesn't win, if he does America is ****ed.

America is ****ed regardless of which a-hole gets in. But if Obama gets in, your economic situation will probably improve.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 18:57
America is ****ed regardless of which a-hole gets in. But if Obama gets in, your economic situation will probably improve.

:vlol::vlol::vlol: Riiiiight.

Andariel
26-08-08, 19:00
McCain (McBush) is a Neoconservative within the Republican Party. The ignorance to the economy that Neocons have is astounding to me. McCain is out of touch with the working class. Continuing the Iraq war will only continue to damage the economy and make the middle class struggle harder due to increased American debt. Any idiot should know the true threat is the Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Also his interest in making nuclear energy as our primary energy source is ridiculous. It'll create a lot of dangerous radio-active waste. Plus it'll push the ultimate need for renewable energy as our primary energy source onto later generations which is irresponsible and won't solve the actual problem.

The fact that Obama is becoming a centrist makes me think he isn't going to get much good done. Judging from his speeches I think he'll waste time trying to please both parties, like past Democrats, and not make enough cold hard decisions Americans need. He needs to stop the pillow talk and state the actual policies he plans to make.

Personally, I'm an independent and remaining one. We need to get to the core of America's problems and truly try to fix them properly.

Geck-o-Lizard
26-08-08, 19:02
:vlol::vlol::vlol: Riiiiight.

First, I find it hard to see him diving headlong into any more expensive and illegal wars. Second, his tax increases only apply to the rich. Third, if you look at the pattern made by the recent presidents, you'd notice that fiscal conservatism is not doing your national debt any favours, so McCain is not a wise choice there.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 19:03
McCain (McBush) is a Neoconservative within the Republican Party. The ignorance to the economy that Neocons have is astounding to me. McCain is out of touch with the working class. Continuing the Iraq war will only continue to damage the economy and make the middle class struggle harder due to increased American debt. Any idiot should know the true threat is the Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Also his interest in making nuclear energy as our primary energy source is ridiculous. It'll create a lot of dangerous radio-active waste. Plus it'll push the ultimate need for renewable energy as our primary energy source onto later generations which is irresponsible and won't solve the actual problem.

The fact that Obama is becoming a centrist makes me think he isn't going to get much good done. Judging from his speeches I think he'll waste time trying to please both parties, like past Democrats, and not make enough cold hard decisions Americans need. He needs to stop the pillow talk and state the actual policies he plans to make.

Personally, I'm an independent and remaining one. We need to get to the core of America's problems and truly try to fix them properly.

I'm an independant too and my first thought is neither one of these assclowns is worthy of office but they are the only two choices ooops I mean there is only one choice and he's from Arizona. I'd much rather have options.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 19:04
First, I find it hard to see him diving headlong into any more expensive and illegal wars. Second, his tax increases only apply to the rich. Third, if you look at the pattern made by the recent presidents, you'd notice that fiscal conservatism is not doing your national debt any favours, so McCain is not a wise choice there.

Obama: the problem is not the gas prices, it's how fast they rose.

SamReeves
26-08-08, 19:06
Well, when any politicians visit injured soldiers you never know whether it's because the politicians care or because they only want to look as if they care, but Obama's move certainly was just about the worst he could do in this case.

However the thing is that wounded servicemen can identify with McCain. He was a Navy officer tortured and beaten by the Vietnamese. He was offered a chance to go back, but by himself. He choose to stick it out with his shipmates as he does believe that no man should be left behind.

Obama never served in the military and has a very inept understanding what it means to serve. I think most military people will be voting for McCain as a result of Obama's shortcomings both in hospital visits and his understanding of the military.

There are so many people out there that aren't being shown how much of an idiot this guy is because a lot of media outlets are owned by Conservatives that would rather show any type of slip up that Obama makes, and only praise McCain.


Not true. Conservative voters such as myself have been critical of McCain. McCain is not a true conservative. He's still a maverick, sometimes too liberal for my tastes, and cuts backroom deals with the Dems. However when you look at two pretty big a-holes running on the Dem's side compared to one big a-hole at this point, the choice is relatively easy.

Hopefully the a-hole doesn't win, if he does America is ****ed.

I still feel somewhat the same way. I'd rather see a Huckabee/Hunter ticket for my side, but alas we have McCain.

America is ****ed regardless of which a-hole gets in. But if Obama gets in, your economic situation will probably improve.

LOL!!!!!! What a load B.S. that is. Obama doesn't have a solid plan to increase the energy supply, he's vowed to raise taxes, and get ready for universal healthcare … which is going to break the bank of the government. As fas as I can see, neither candidate will reduce the size of government. So yea, this country is screwed for the next four years.

Geck-o-Lizard
26-08-08, 19:06
Obama: the problem is not the gas prices, it's how fast they rose.

A coherent reply if you're going to discuss this, please... What do you mean and what does gas prices have to do with national debt?


he's vowed to raise taxes

For whom, precisely, and by how much?

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 19:10
A coherent reply if you're going to discuss this, please... What do you mean and what does gas prices have to do with national debt?




For whom, precisely, and by how much?

Listen to the radio, I heard him say it in an audio clip. I have to hand it to Glenn Beck, if he wasn't so good at catching these lying pieces of trash we'd all be in deep doo doo.

Cochrane
26-08-08, 19:15
However the thing is that wounded servicemen can identify with McCain. He was a Navy officer tortured and beaten by the Vietnamese. He was offered a chance to go back, but by himself. He choose to stick it out with his shipmates as he does believe that no man should be left behind.

Obama never served in the military and has a very inept understanding what it means to serve. I think most military people will be voting for McCain as a result of Obama's shortcomings both in hospital visits and his understanding of the military.

Military does not play a significant role in Germany, so I'm wondering: How much do you think does it matter that military people will prefer McCain? And with military people, I assume you mean all kinds of veterans as well?

By the way, if he was tortured by the Vietnamese, wouldn't it make sense that he'd be against the US using torture as well? I don't know whether he does, but since he's more or less the official heir of Bush I would have assumed he supported torture. Or does he go against party line there?

Listen to the radio, I heard him say it in an audio clip. I have to hand it to Glenn Beck, if he wasn't so good at catching these lying pieces of trash we'd all be in deep doo doo.

Well, is it wrong? Think about it: We europeans live with significantly higher gas prices and have done so for quite a while. Americans can do that (they may not want to, but they can) as well if they buy different cars. The transition period where they buy the new cars is where it hurts.

Andariel
26-08-08, 19:19
@Geck: Obama claims to raise taxes on the "rich". He hasn't said what specific income rate they'd need to be at. Yet that's Barack for ya, no specifics. Although it's not as if the people making $250k+ a year are ever going to need their dispensable bank accounts.

Geck-o-Lizard
26-08-08, 19:23
@Geck: Obama claims to raise taxes on the "rich". He hasn't said what specific income rate they'd need to be at. Yet that's Barack for ya, no specifics. Although it's not as if the people making $250k+ a year are ever going to need their dispensable bank accounts.

His figure seems to be set at $250,000 a year. Below that, in the middle & poor classes that make up most of the country, people are not going to be affected by tax cuts. It's the rich who can more than afford it who'll get taxed the most.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 19:28
they will most likely slide the tax increase under the radar like every other thing, sneak it in.

Andariel
26-08-08, 19:28
His figure seems to be set at $250,000 a year. Below that, in the middle & poor classes that make up most of the country, people are not going to be affected by tax cuts. It's the rich who can more than afford it who'll get taxed the most.
Exactly. I think the rich ought to quite belly-aching and just continue working. They'll continue to be well off. Also stop buying homes to the point where they lose count like McCain did. ;)

Geck-o-Lizard
26-08-08, 19:30
they will most likely slide the tax increase under the radar like every other thing, sneak it in.

o_O

Explain.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 19:33
o_O

Explain.

Everything they do is sneaky, they tried to do some bill earlier this year and sneak amnesty for illegals into it. I remember Kennedy's smug smile in the picture, I'd love to wipe that smile off of his face. He's one of many traitors in our midst.

SamReeves
26-08-08, 19:35
By the way, if he was tortured by the Vietnamese, wouldn't it make sense that he'd be against the US using torture as well? I don't know whether he does, but since he's more or less the official heir of Bush I would have assumed he supported torture. Or does he go against party line there?


You are correct there. McCain does want to close Gitmo, and move terror suspects to Kansas I believe. McCain is pretty sensitive about torture practices and has very critical of President Bush's use of water boarding during Bush's first term. This is where McCain and conservative voters are split, as many Republicans believe the terrorists should stay at Gitmo.

Everything they do is sneaky, they tried to do some bill earlier this year and sneak amnesty for illegals into it. I remember Kennedy's smug smile in the picture, I'd love to wipe that smile off of his face. He's one of many traitors in our midst.

Agreed there. Watching just a little bit of the Dem's rosy tribute last night to Uncle Ted was chilling for me. He's a huge a-hole.

Geck-o-Lizard
26-08-08, 19:36
Everything they do is sneaky

...most compelling argument against Democrats I've ever heard. Congrats.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 19:37
...most compelling argument against Democrats I've ever heard. Congrats.

:rolleyes: Most unimaginative comback in history, congrats.

Tyrannosaurus
26-08-08, 19:38
I doubt this is plagiarism, myself.

But hey, if McCaine wants to quote Wikipedia again, at least he can quote with authority. For all we know, he could have edited the articles he plagiarized before he made his speech. Furthermore, he can also edit the articles in order to suit his needs. Wikipedia is the best site on the net to visit if you don't like facts getting in your way.

Goose
26-08-08, 19:46
I doubt this is plagiarism, myself.

But hey, if McCaine wants to quote Wikipedia again, at least he can quote with authority. For all we know, he could have edited the articles he plagiarized before he made his speech. Furthermore, he can also edit the articles in order to suit his needs. Wikipedia is the best site on the net to visit if you don't like facts getting in your way.

Do wikipedia own the rights to any of the information held on there site, considering its ever increasing and was written by numerous people in the first place?

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 19:48
Do wikipedia own the rights to any of the information held on there site, considering its ever increasing and was written by numerous people in the first place?

Nope, it's all user provided, they do require some verification because they do believe in being factual. The articles can be one sided depending on how many number of people on one side outgun the other side. That's why I stick to technical stuff on there only.

Tyrannosaurus
26-08-08, 19:48
Exactly. You can prove anything with a little editing of the relevant Wikipedia article.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 19:58
Exactly. You can prove anything with a little editing of the relevant Wikipedia article.

That's 99% true, Geoffrey Mandel made some fan blueprints for the Star Destroyer in 1978 and in an email to me admitted they were never official. I couldn't actually prove it but I put it in the article anyway stating even Mandel himself admitted they weren't official but that didn't stop the saxtonite jerkoffs from eventually erasing it. This pinhead named Curtis Saxton an alleged astrophysicist even tried to change the name of the Imperial Star Destroyer to Imperator class. He did eventually get some kind of official go ahead from lucasfilm licensing but his two books never gained any real ground in the star wars tech dept. The only people who care enough to keep his bs flowing are the people who worship the idiot. They even try to force real world naval designations on fantasy ships. Emphasis on fantasy ships. This is just an example of how retarded wikipedia can be. Saxton should be a politician he's a world class liar. I've talked to him in the past.

Goose
26-08-08, 20:01
Exactly. You can prove anything with a little editing of the relevant Wikipedia article.


The offending words are only a paragraphs worth:
"Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion. 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."

Wiki have taken the words at put them next to their (its not theirs at all) own statements:
Wikipedia – ....one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion.

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

Wikipedia – 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.

McCain – 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

So as you can see, its not even the entire paragraph that was 'plagerised' just two to three sentances that do have words added and removed.

In this instance, Wikipedia are saying that plagerism is no longer about copying to the word, but repeating historical information in a similar fasion as numerous other people have on the internet.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 20:04
The offending words are only a paragraphs worth:
"Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion. 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."

Wiki have taken the words at put them next to their (its not theirs at all) own statements:
Wikipedia – ....one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion.

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

Wikipedia – 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.

McCain – 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

So as you can see, its not even the entire paragraph that was 'plagerised' just two to three sentances that do have words added and removed.

In this instance, Wikipedia are saying that plagerism is no longer about copying to the word, but repeating historical information in a similar fasion as numerous other people have on the internet.

This might be appropriate to the claim of plagiarism.

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0807/BS-Meter.gif

Cochrane
26-08-08, 20:16
Do wikipedia own the rights to any of the information held on there site, considering its ever increasing and was written by numerous people in the first place?

AFAIK The rights to the articles lie with everyone who ever edited any part of that article, there is no transfer of ownership. They are covered by the GNU Free Documentation License, and if you edit something on Wikipedia you are agreeing that whatever you write can be used under that license (if you don't agree you mustn't post there). This means that if you edited a Wikipedia article, and then someone uses it in a way that violates the license, you have the right to sue them.

As for the common criticism: Anyone can also look at what you edited and Wikipedia now requires giving sources for all new information, so wrong or biased information tends to be exposed as such extremely quickly. If you don't like Wikipedia, hey, not my problem, but dismissing any information gained from it entirely is not helpful.

Goose
26-08-08, 20:17
Its far from it from an academic point of view, the second sentance they compaired was patially re-worded, which cant be considered plagerism if your dealing with historical fact rather then fiction.

The only thing they have is the first comparison, but if i handed in a work to a college or school teacher on Russia and Georgia, and i had that one line of words in there amongst paragraphs of others, would i be charged with plagerism?

Whats comical is that Wiki claimed to have asked "where the McCain camp got there source of information from?", as if wikipedia is a unique source in the first place!

For all we know the original wikipedia article was copied word for word from a book called 'Professor Van Zkunstein's Guide to the former soviet union' or somwhere else. Which it is pretty certain it was.

Geck-o-Lizard
26-08-08, 20:18
In this instance, Wikipedia are saying that plagerism is no longer about copying to the word, but repeating historical information in a similar fasion as numerous other people have on the internet.

Actually, if you were caught doing this in a high school English class you could easily lose your grades. Happened plenty of times at my school - someone thought they'd get away with copying from other sources by changing the words here and there, and the teacher caught them. If you've got a lawyer then you can probably claim that you're not plagiarising since it's not word-perfect, but that's also suggesting that everyone who sees the similarities and points out that you probably didn't do it yourself is a moron.

Cochrane
26-08-08, 20:19
Its far from it from an academic point of view, the second sentance they compaired was patially re-worded, which cant be considered plagerism if your dealing with historical fact rather then fiction.

The only thing they have is the first comparison, but if i handed in a work to a college or school teacher on Russia and Georgia, and i had that one line of words in there amongst paragraphs of others, would i be charged with plagerism?

Whats comical is that Wiki claimed to have asked "where the McCain camp got there source of information from?", as if wikipedia is a unique source in the first place!

For all we know the original wikipedia article was copied word for word from a book called 'Professor Van Zkunstein's Guide to the former soviet union' or somwhere else. Which it is pretty certain it was.

I agree that the plagiarism claim is too weak to be taken seriously. However, Wikipedia is a source of information. It is not a unique source and it does not try to be, instead summarizing information that can be found elsewhere, but it is meant to be used as a tool for finding information.

Goose
26-08-08, 20:20
Actually, if you were caught doing this in a high school English class you could easily lose your grades. Happened plenty of times at my school - someone thought they'd get away with copying from other sources by changing the words slightly, and the teacher caught them. If you've got a lawyer then you can probably claim that you're not plagiarising since it's not word-perfect, but that's also suggesting that everyone who sees the similarities and points out that you probably didn't do it yourself is a moron.

Ok, on World war 2.

"world war two for England started when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, as we had made it clear that we would not accept Germanies continued advance into Europe"

This would be plagerism if your correct, but i just typed it off the top of my head, but no doubt its written a thousand times over in a similar if not exact paragraph.

AmericanAssassin
26-08-08, 20:20
I'm not the least bit surprised by this. I'm sure Wikipedia is primarily used by Republican politicians. :vlol:

Goose
26-08-08, 20:22
I agree that the plagiarism claim is too weak to be taken seriously. However, Wikipedia is a source of information. It is not a unique source and it does not try to be, instead summarizing information that can be found elsewhere, but it is meant to be used as a tool for finding information.

But thats a problem with this story, Wikipedia is claiming to be a unique source, they even seem to think they have legal grounds:

"Wikinews attempted to contact Mike Godwin, the legal counsel for the Foundation, but has yet to receive a response."

Mad Tony
26-08-08, 20:23
I'm not the least bit surprised by this. I'm sure Wikipedia is primarily used by Republican politicians. :vlol:Here you go again with your pointless constant Republican/conservative bashing. You can bash McCain all you like. To be honest he's not the best person that could've been chosen for the Republican nomination IMO. But do you have to keep on bashing the Republican party in general? It gets rather annoying when you tar everyone with the same brush.

Cochrane
26-08-08, 20:23
I'm not the least bit surprised by this. I'm sure Wikipedia is primarily used by Republican politicians. :vlol:

Actually, Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) is more or less directed directly at them. Although, to be honest, I have no idea whether that site is serious or parody.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 20:26
Here you go again with your pointless constant Republican/conservative bashing. You can bash McCain all you like. To be honest he's not the best person that could've been chosen for the Republican nomination IMO. But do you have to keep on bashing the Republican party in general? It gets rather annoying when you tar everyone with the same brush.

Good luck getting them to see reason.

Mad Tony
26-08-08, 20:26
Actually, Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) is more or less directed directly at them. Although, to be honest, I have no idea whether that site is serious or parody.That's most likely a cheap parody from a couple of liberals my friend. But yeah, I know what you mean. Sometimes over the internet it's hard to tell whether things are serious or parodies.

Cochrane
26-08-08, 20:26
But thats a problem with this story, Wikipedia is claiming to be a unique source, they even seem to think they have legal grounds:

"Wikinews attempted to contact Mike Godwin, the legal counsel for the Foundation, but has yet to receive a response."

Who 'they'? Some random guys who edit Wikipedia and Wikinews. There's lots of them. As the article states, the official legal counsel of Wikipedia hasn't commented on that yet, and likely won't, as other members of the Wikipedia foundation (which runs the entire thing) don't see it as a big thing. Basically, this is just a conspiracy theory by some guys with too much time. It's not official Wikipedia policy that McCain stole, there's no such thing as official Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia is not claiming to be a unique source, but they are claiming that the text they use is originally written by those who claim they did. Unless proven otherwise, we have to assume that this is, in fact, the case.

AmericanAssassin
26-08-08, 20:27
Here you go again with your pointless constant Republican/conservative bashing. You can bash McCain all you like. To be honest he's not the best person that could've been chosen for the Republican nomination IMO. But do you have to keep on bashing the Republican party in general? It gets rather annoying when you tar everyone with the same brush.

I will bash Republicans all I want. ;) I truly believe that Republican politicians (not necessarily the voters) are selfish people, who only care about themselves and their ridiculous life style. Conservatism is what is holding this country back, in my 100% honest opinion. :)

Goose
26-08-08, 20:29
Who 'they'? Some random guys who edit Wikipedia and Wikinews. There's lots of them. As the article states, the official legal counsel of Wikipedia hasn't commented on that yet, and likely won't, as other members of the Wikipedia foundation (which runs the entire thing) don't see it as a big thing. Basically, this is just a conspiracy theory by some guys with too much time. It's not official Wikipedia policy that McCain stole, there's no such thing as official Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia is not claiming to be a unique source, but they are claiming that the text they use is originally written by those who claim they did. Unless proven otherwise, we have to assume that this is, in fact, the case.

Then that goes back to the fact that on historical information, if you copy a sentance but re-word it, its no longer plagerism, as you cant own history, leaving them with half a sentance worth of plagerised wording.

stereopathic
26-08-08, 20:30
Ok, on World war 2.

"world war two for England started when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, as we had made it clear that we would not accept Germanies continued advance into Europe"

This would be plagerism if your correct, but i just typed it off the top of my head, but no doubt its written a thousand times over in a similar if not exact paragraph.

the fateful day when the sound of nazi jackboots crossed the border into poland was a wake-up call for the proud people of the united kingdom.

it was with clear eyes that they saw the nazis would never cease their steady march on europe.

*bang* not plagararized. sourced.

Goose
26-08-08, 20:32
the fateful day when the sound of nazi jackboots crossed the border into poland was a wake-up call for the proud people of the united kingdom.

it was with clear eyes that they saw the nazis would never cease their steady march on europe.

*bang* not plagararized. sourced.

Yes, but we dont speak in text bubbles to have quotations above our heads, and i dont own the rights (in some wiki authors view) to that information in the first place for you to source me. Besides, its nothing like my example so its not plagerism, and doesnt need to be sourced.

Mad Tony
26-08-08, 20:33
I will bash Republicans all I want. ;) I truly believe that Republican politicians (not necessarily the voters) are selfish people, who only care about themselves and their ridiculous life style. Conservatism is what is holding this country back, in my 100% honest opinion. :)And the Democratic politicians are all honest, selfless and good people? You've gotta learn that regardless of political party, a large number of politicians in general are pretty selfish. You're giving me the impression that you think all Republican politicians are all selfish and bad people yet you think the Democratic politicans are the opposite.

You seem to have a prejudice against all forms of conservatism without even hearing what they're all about.

AmericanAssassin
26-08-08, 20:37
Not at all, but I do believe that there are more honest Democrats out there, who care about this country and not just one type of person. This government can't be formed around the American dream, because what was once thought of as that is dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. Democrats want this country to move forward more than Republicans, toward a more liberal way. I'm very liberal in just about all of my views, so it's only natural that I'd be a little bit hasty when in comes to politics. :)

EDIT: Ugh! It's time for me to go to work, but I'd like to talk to you one on one, one of these days. If it's understanding for conservatives that you think I need, then I want to hear your side. See ya. ;)

SamReeves
26-08-08, 20:38
I will bash Republicans all I want. ;) I truly believe that Republican politicians (not necessarily the voters) are selfish people, who only care about themselves and their ridiculous life style. Conservatism is what is holding this country back, in my 100% honest opinion. :)

And the Democratic politicians are all honest, selfless and good people? You've gotta learn that regardless of political party, a large number of politicians in general are pretty selfish. You're giving me the impression that you think all Republican politicians are all selfish and bad people yet you think the Democratic politicans are the opposite.

I have to agree with Ben here. There are BAD people from both sides, and to believe the Dems defecate Tiffany cuff links every day is pretty darn silly. McCain has the rap from the S&L crisis in the 1980's, which still gives me a moment of thought if he still has a shred of honesty left in him. But it's a choice of who defecates the least.

Cochrane
26-08-08, 20:42
Then that goes back to the fact that on historical information, if you copy a sentance but re-word it, its no longer plagerism, as you cant own history, leaving them with half a sentance worth of plagerised wording.

Applying copyright to sentences is kind of pointless. If you copy a sentence but re-word it, this is, in theory, a derivate work, and as such has to be done according to the license. If you come up with the same sentence as you would have through other means, such as thinking of it yourself, it wouldn't be. Analyzing plagiarism cases is a very, very difficult topic, and you have to take far more sample data than one sentence to reach any sort of interesting and useful conclusion.

Important things are what data is presented, what is left out, how is the order, how are sentences formed out of that... No two history books will have entire multiple-paragraph regions that are very similar, so in that case one can talk about possible plagiarism.

Paul H
26-08-08, 20:56
Not at all, but I do believe that there are more honest Democrats out there, who care about this country and not just one type of person. This government can't be formed around the American dream, because what was once thought of as that is dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. Democrats want this country to move forward more than Republicans, toward a more liberal way. I'm very liberal in just about all of my views, so it's only natural that I'd be a little bit hasty when in comes to politics. :)



Although I would agree that on the whole Democrats are less selfish and just generally better people that Republicans, there are exceptions on both sides. I utterly loathe Bill Clinton, for example, because of the thousands of innocent people he murdered in his illegal Kosovo war. And I have nothing but admiration for the Republican Ron Paul who was by far the best candidate from either party.

But McCain? Why is he ahead in the polls? Why is he even a candidate? Why don't they just pick anyone at random off the street and make them the Republican candidate? They couldn't do any worse than McCain.

Andariel
26-08-08, 21:12
Both parties are self-righteous, deceiving, and manipulative. Most of the politicians are at least. It's interesting how low people can become just because they have financial security. This is why I don't understand why anyone would affiliate themselves with either party after this kind of realization. Anyone can keep their values and beliefs and still vote without boxing themselves into either of them. I guess it's anyone's prerogative.

Geck-o-Lizard
26-08-08, 21:16
That's most likely a cheap parody from a couple of liberals my friend. But yeah, I know what you mean. Sometimes over the internet it's hard to tell whether things are serious or parodies.

Lol. Conservapedia is serious. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets hijacked occasionally by mischief-makers to make them look even dafter though.

Forwen
26-08-08, 21:31
The way I see it the whole thing isn't about plagiarism or not. McCain already lost either way - in PR department, as this discussion shouldn't be taking place. To be even accused of plagiarising a godsdamn Wikipedia, of all things, placing a presidential candidate next to lazy 6th graders is pretty darn embarrassing all by itself.

That's 99% true, Geoffrey Mandel made some fan blueprints for the Star Destroyer in 1978 and in an email to me admitted they were never official. .

Out of curiosity, are we talking these blueprints (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html#imperator)?

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 21:37
The way I see it the whole thing isn't about plagiarism or not. McCain already lost either way - in PR department, as this discussion shouldn't be taking place. To be even accused of plagiarising a godsdamn Wikipedia, of all things, placing a presidential candidate next to lazy 6th graders is pretty darn embarrassing all by itself.



Out of curiosity, are we talking these blueprints (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html#imperator)?

Yep those are the ones. Saxton is a liar the friggin site says they are official, :vlol:.

Cochrane
26-08-08, 22:13
Yep those are the ones. Saxton is a liar the friggin site says they are official, :vlol:.

EDIT: Ignore the rest, seems I got things wrong here. Rest of post preserved for future reference, but no longer reflects my opinion.

Truth in the Star Wars universe is whatever Lucasfilm decides to be truth. Saxton's books are the latest that are released, are released most widely, and most importantly have been released after the internal Star Wars continuity database has been established and has been used to verify anything that goes out, and make judgement calls when contradictions are unavoidable in either case. You may not like it, but the fact is: This is the data that has been declared best by the ones who legally get to declare such things, i.e. Lucasfilm's licensing department, so Wikipedia saying anything else is more correct is simply a lie. It does not matter which is older, it only matters which Lucasfilm likes more.

Trust me, while I'm not familiar with the actual books you're talking about (I've had to look it up on, you guessed it, Wikipedia first), there are many decisions by Lucasfilm Licensing and their authors, such as the deaths of Chewbacca and Mara Jade, but me wishing that this wasn't the case does not mean Wikipedia should report something else.

Fortune&Glory
26-08-08, 22:34
EDIT: Ignore the rest, seems I got things wrong here. Rest of post preserved for future reference, but no longer reflects my opinion.

Truth in the Star Wars universe is whatever Lucasfilm decides to be truth. Saxton's books are the latest that are released, are released most widely, and most importantly have been released after the internal Star Wars continuity database has been established and has been used to verify anything that goes out, and make judgement calls when contradictions are unavoidable in either case. You may not like it, but the fact is: This is the data that has been declared best by the ones who legally get to declare such things, i.e. Lucasfilm's licensing department, so Wikipedia saying anything else is more correct is simply a lie. It does not matter which is older, it only matters which Lucasfilm likes more.

Trust me, while I'm not familiar with the actual books you're talking about (I've had to look it up on, you guessed it, Wikipedia first), there are many decisions by Lucasfilm Licensing and their authors, such as the deaths of Chewbacca and Mara Jade, but me wishing that this wasn't the case does not mean Wikipedia should report something else.

The fact is the blurprints are not official as stated by the creator of them. the database still has the established info on it, Saxton has had zero effect on the database site.

tlr online
26-08-08, 22:34
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_investigates_claim_McCain_plagiarized_spe ech_from_Wikipedia

Your avatar scares me.

Quasimodo
26-08-08, 22:35
Your avatar scares me.

Same here :eek:

Cochrane
26-08-08, 22:49
The fact is the blurprints are not official as stated by the creator of them. the database still has the established info on it, Saxton has had zero effect on the database site.

Gah, this is all too confusing for me, I've been into the Star Wars EU only for a year.

I do wonder, however, why Wikipedia would include technical data on fictional ships in the first place. As far as information goes, this is hardly the kind that matters, isn't it?

Fortune&Glory
27-08-08, 04:56
Gah, this is all too confusing for me, I've been into the Star Wars EU only for a year.

I do wonder, however, why Wikipedia would include technical data on fictional ships in the first place. As far as information goes, this is hardly the kind that matters, isn't it?

It really doesn't matter yes but Mandel's work is not official. I'm not all that worried since I like Star Trek more these days anyway. No matter what saxton does his crapola will never reach any real heights.

Legend 4ever
27-08-08, 11:09
I hate him, so...that is good news.

EscondeR
27-08-08, 11:13
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_investigates_claim_McCain_plagiarized_spe ech_from_Wikipedia

Why I'm not surprized? :whi: He could certainly use his brains... if had any :rolleyes: