Wired Editor Cribs From Wikipedia in New Book
A drama has been playing out on the Web involving Wikipedia and Chris Anderson, Wired's editor-in-chief and author of the book 'Free: The Future of a Radical Price.' Anderson's book doesn't hit store shelves until July 7th, but copies have already landed on the desks of reviewers at several publications.
One of them, the Virginia Quarterly Review, published an article on June 23 revealing roughly a dozen passages in 'Free' that are uncredited excerpts from other sources, primarily Wikipedia. One particularly blatant example -- discussing the origins of the phrase "there's no such thing as a free lunch" -- reproduced a Wikipedia entry that itself included uncredited quotations from the New York Times.
In response to these charges of plagiarism, Anderson explained to the Virginia Quarterly Review that citations were lost in a last-minute reformatting, or 'write-through,' of the book that ditched footnotes in favor of in-text citations. He took responsibility for the mistake stating, "All those are my screwups... I should have had a better process to make sure the write-through covered all the text that was not directly sourced."
Chris Dannen at Fast Company was less disturbed by the possible plagiarism than by Anderson's reliance on Wikipedia. He argued that Wikipedia isn't even appropriate for "middle-school book-reports" and suggested that Anderson should have used "more credible reference books like the Oxford English Dictionary."
It's debatable what reference books are "more credible." We've already seen a study suggesting that Wikipedia is just accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example. The bigger question is: Should a professional journalist, who heads a publication as respected as Wired, be relying on reference-book articles at all?
[From: Virginia Quarterly Review and Fast Company]
Limited-Edition Game Consoles
Xbox's unveiling of its new, red 'Resident Evil' console is the most recent in a line of limited edition consoles designed to tap in to the "collector" market. While some of the limited edition consoles were released with a specific target audience in mind, others appeal to the sensibilities of all gamers. You can check out some other recent limited edition consoles in the following pages:
Metal Gear Solid 4 Limited Edition PS3:
This bundle not only included a gunmetal gray PS3 with matching wireless controller, but also the MGS4: Guns of the Patriot Limited Edition game.
Nintendo Pokemon DS Lite:
At the forefront of limited edition sales, Nintendo offered this yellow DS complete with Pikachu etching.
Guitar Hero: On Tour DS Bundle:
Nintendo offered fans of this franchise a special silver and black DS featuring a fiery Guitar Hero logo on the cover.
Lilac PSP:
It's not difficult to discern the target audience for this console set to be released with the $199 Hannah Montana Entertainment Pack.
Nintendo Pink Ribbon DS
Nintendo not only pledged five dollars from every purchase of these $129.99 consoles to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, but that they would also donate at least $100,000 in total.
-- Warren Baines
_thumbnail.jpg "Vintage Keyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
jimbarry1946 said 7:16AM on 6-26-2009
Of course he shouldn't rely on Wikipedia. He should just make stuff up or use his personal prejudices like most journalists.
Reply
mbrul said 12:10PM on 6-26-2009
good one. but what an idiot, if you're going to steal, steal from a reliable source.
glory25420 said 4:01PM on 6-26-2009
Wow, I thought this was going to be another story about Elizabeth Hasselbeck stealing Susan Hasset's book. So what if Elizabeth didn't do the boring old research, she's busy, and besides, she's a celebrity, not a scientist! Susan Hasset send it to her and that made it Elizabeth's to do with as she pleased. Also, I'm getting tired of liberals saying Elizabeth is too stupid to write anything, or she's a moron, or camera hog, etc. They're just jealous because Elizabeth is prettier than they are.
lyndagayle62 said 8:12PM on 6-26-2009
I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU. It took a while to learn that most all national news media and journalists are directed as to what, who, when, and how to read the "reports" written on hundreds of teleprompters from the building of the UN by the UN staff and underwritten by the Illuminati, the Luciferian umbrella over most other like- kind groups in the world who feel they have bulldozed all citizens, propagandized most of what they want people to hear and "know" according to the "desired behavior-goals", and thereby have by their sole discretion determined what THEY want, forcing ALL citizens to
accept it or be considered a CRIMINAL!. God bless you, Jimbarry1946!
dee said 7:21AM on 6-26-2009
I've written for Wikipedia, and I can tell you the information it presents is unreliable. Any idiot with a computer and I'net access can edit anything. Furthermore, the project is hopelessly skewed toward a white, under-40 demographic; in short, it's racist. Don't let anyone fool you that this online encyclopedia is a reliable source of information. A cursory look at the articles, edit histories and discussion pages related to black/Third World subject mater of virtually any kind will reveal a streak of racism and eurocentrism that is ugly, pervasive, deep. Wikipedia? It's a noble idea. In the end, however, It's not worth the paper it's not printed on.
Reply
beanietwo said 10:55AM on 6-26-2009
It's a good thing it's not printed on paper seeing as how it's an online encyclopedia
Not a white guy said 11:03AM on 6-26-2009
It's a good thing beanietwo can't read, making his attempt at smartassery that much more pathetic.
Alorah said 7:48AM on 6-26-2009
go to any wikipedia information page and you can click edit and change it to whatever you like - SO not reliable.
Reply
steven gillis said 8:45AM on 7-02-2009
AS I POSTED ON EMERGING WRITERS NETWORK YESTERDAY:
Many of you by now have probably heard that Chris Anderson, Editor at WIRED, admitted to plagiarizing - a fancy word for stealing - vast amounts of text from Wikipedia - no less - which was then inserted as text into his book: Free: The Future of a Radical Price. My response? ENOUGH!! This sort of fraud has happened one too many times. How can a writer do this? How can someone simply lift another source of material and claim it as their own work product? What sort of man does these things? Anderson's excuses are not worth the time to repeat here. They are at best weak and at worst psychotic. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/chris-anderson-apologizes-for-plagiarizing-wikipedia/?scp=1&sq=chris%20anderson&st=cse Are we not as artists, educators, parents and writers, editors and readers, better than this? Are we supposed to simply turn a blind eye - again - and ignore this as yet another example of the way of the world today? Have we fallen so low and lazy as to treat this incident as nothing but entertainment to talk about and then forget?
If Anderson is not fired, if we as a united group of writers and readers are not outraged enough to stand up and demand Anderson be held accountable for his actions which insult the very fabric of our industry then shame on us for allowing this latest incident to pass as simply something to be chatted about for a day. The problem is bigger than Anderson. This is not the first time such a crime – yes crime – and fraud has happened, and if we are apathetic and complacent, it will not be the last. Anderson quite simply must go. If he is not held accountable, we are all lost.
Steve Gillis
Reply
Kathleen said 8:44AM on 6-26-2009
When you don't know anything about a topic, Wikipedia is a great place to go for fast, basic information. It's a starting point. But, for verifiable and citable information, you must go to more valid sources. I see Wikipedia cited and plagiarized in college papers all the time, and it's just not acceptable. Anderson should have known better, and so should his editors.
Reply
Kal Palnicki said 9:29AM on 6-26-2009
Someone objects to plagiarizing as being a fancy word for stealing. Is Embzelling is also a fancy word is it simply more concise?
Kill, murder, manslaughter all describe a death but all have separate and distinct meanings. Anyone who rejects the language as it exists is not a good user of it.
Reply
Ken Kilner said 9:46AM on 6-26-2009
Steve Gillis said it all, albeit at length. Chris Anderson should be fired and his book withdrawn. Instead, he will likely end up on Oprah. His publishers are, as we speak, probably tripling their initial print order. I often ask my cat why in the name of creation we landed on this particular planet, since she is supposed to be in charge of intergalactic travel. But, listen up, she actually likes it here. She gets to sleep sixteen hours a day, watch mindless crap on TV, and look over my shoulder while I peruse planetary goings on in Star magazine. So, lighten up everybody. After all, if eighty five percent of the nation takes the BIble literally (another white male dominated reference source), why in God's name should we be worrying about the veracity of Wikipedia? Et cetera.
Reply
GUNshy45 said 10:16AM on 6-26-2009
I am absolutely outraged at this Anderson character. Not only did he use an unreliable sources to give food for thought, but he also tried to claim it as his own. If we could use his blood instead of ink, I would write a never-ending book and see how far it goes. Plagiarism is what he fed us, and these are my ill-fed thoughts.
Reply
August said 10:41AM on 6-26-2009
Wiki is considered more rumor than fact isnt it. What kind of author would use it as a source.
Reply
thundercat1945 said 11:13AM on 6-26-2009
Rumor or fact or whatever, looks like what Joe Biden was proven to have done. He has plagiarized a speech from a popular British labor leader. Also took lines from John F. Kennedy speeches and borrowed lines from various individuals, and that includes his law school thesis.
Reply
timman0071 said 11:57AM on 6-26-2009
I always say that only the first guy who picked up a branch/club and hit it against a hollow log was the first musician the rest have plagarized his music, from Bach to aerosmith. Reusing information is nothing new. He should have checked his source. I think it was Ben Franklin who said " For lack of a nail a horse shoe was lost and so hense the battle" ....." take care of the details or they will take care of you." I said that. Tim
Reply
Paul Ahkolik said 12:01PM on 6-26-2009
Of course you can't trust Wikipedia. There's two articles there that I have direct & indusputable knowledge of, and at least 2-5 times a month, I'm correcting errors that some 'editor' has made.
Reply
Brian Workman said 12:16PM on 6-26-2009
So What!?
Reply
Dee said 12:24PM on 6-26-2009
I'm a pro writer, and I may use Wikipedia as a starting point to research words or events I'm not familiar with, but then I use other, well-respected sources to confirm. Wikipedia is never acceptable as a source! I remember my college debate coach (pre-Internet) wouldn't even let us use Time or Newsweek as sources, forcing us to go to the original academic journals and studies instead to get our info.
My husband's an artist, and I regularly check his Wikipedia profile to remove errors others have posted. I have no idea where they even get some of that stuff! The last time I saw it, it gave him credit for working with people he hasn't worked with and said he was in a film that he's never even heard of! I called him one day from work to let him know about all of the additional projects he's apparently working on, and the master class he's teaching - all completely bogus! I told him I had no idea how he ever even had time to spend with me with all of that other stuff going on!
Reply
Bill said 12:27PM on 6-26-2009
Can you imagine taking the blame for one of the gross errors in Wikipedia? LOL - at least he should have covered his butt by giving credit to Wik for what he'd written. My 5th grader had a paper on the solar system over winter break. She went to Wik "because they have all the stuff I need". She, at 10 years old, found two errors - and she's an average student, not one the "smart" ones. I suggested she start over but use the NASA site.
Reply