Well, of course you realize that you have just contributed to Wikipedia, albeit indirectly.

Certainly, the article will be fixed to give the proper credit, and to remove itme if copyright did not allow quoting.

This is one of the real strengths of the open source process--the ability to subsume the work of your critics into your process of continuuous improvement.

Hmm. So back when I was a journalist, it wouldn't have been a problem if I just made up a bunch of facts and cribbed from a competitor without attribution, right? Because thanks to the real strength of the open source process, a reader would have noticed the errors and plagiarism, and a correction could have been posted.

Tough luck for the person who read it before it was corrected and thought it was legitimate, of course.

Patrick, the world is full of trade-offs. Wikipedia optimizes for breadth, timeliness, and low cost, sacrificing some short-term accuracy in the process. If 100% accuracy is important to you, then Wikipedia's not a good choice. But Wikipedia never claimed to be a replacement for all reference works. It's very good at what it was designed for: being a one-stop source for mostly-accurate background information on a wide variety of different topics. It's not reasonable to expect them to be something they're not.

Thanks, Tim. I'll confess, I spent too much time in journalism; 100% accuracy is important to me, and as such you are correct, Wikipedia is not right for me. I was laughing with my wife the other day because I was looking up a fact in a book -- I'm so 20th century!

I guess my concern is that not everyone is as reasoned on this topic as you seem to be -- there is a widespread belief, promoted by some wikipediacs, that the wiki model does lead to 100% accuracy. I think that is misleading, and to the extent it approaches that percentage I think it's the result of what I would call plagiarism, even if others believe it is okay to lift another's scholarship without attribution.

And I'll agree with you that Wikipedia does offer a very wide variety of topics; I'm still waiting for Encyclopaedia Britannica to write up a psychological profile on Stewie, the Family Guy infant who craves world domination.

I agree with Tim. Don't let the perfect get in the way of the really, really good.

Plus, given your journalism slant, if we were to expect the New York Times or the Post to be anywhere close to 100 percent accurate (and had thousands of nitpickers poring through every story), both would have been stoned to death by the collective commons a long time ago.

"Hmm. So back when I was a journalist, it wouldn't have been a problem if I just made up a bunch of facts and cribbed from a competitor without attribution, right?"

You are not thinking through what I am saying. I agree that you have identified a problem.

The point I am making is that: your identification of this problem has feed into the process of the improvement of Wikipedia.

Similarly, after the SCO lawsuit, the kernel contributors in linux now have to supply IP releases from their employers, and the IP has been audited very extensively. (not that I believed SCO claims were valid anyway.)

Thus, the criticism has become part of the open source process. The criticism itself is part of the Open Source process.

So, Patrick Ross, whether he likes it or not, has contributed to Wikipedia!

Also, although you've identified the source (and all sources should be attributed, certainly) as the Library of Congress. Most of the stuff published by Library of Congress is in the public domain, is it not?

Are you or are not alleging any copyright violation in this story?

Are you or are not alleging any copyright violation in this story?

Plagiarism is plagiarism, my friend. What you're saying is that the end justifies the means, even if the means is plagiarism. Some of us would disagree.

Note that the Library of Congress is quite clear about the need for proper citations of work taken from its sites:
http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/start/cite/index.html#website

It's interesting to note that the one alteration the Wikipedia writer made in copying five complete paragraphs actually introduced a major error. The original opens as follows: "Between 1536 and 1564 an enterprising Genoese chartmaker, Battista Agnese, produced in Venice ..." The Wikipedia entry opens: "Born in 1536 and died in 1564, Battista Agnese was an enterprising Genoese chartmaker." The dates are not the dates of his birth and death, but the dates of his most productive period.

Any way you cut it, this example of the creation of a Wikipedia entry raises important questions about the integrity of the work and its contributors.

What Enigma is trying to describe is the process of diffusion, whereby an invention improves by adoption and feedback in the market. The concept probably doesn't apply with Wikipedia though.

I'm the first person to disagree with Professor Lessig's correlation between open source software and Wikipedia, however I will note this similarity: its simply scary how some folks lack the creativity and drive to produce something original. This has implications far beyond the mere copying of web site text, as scholars have found the growth of non-intellectual property respecting countries limited to that which already exists elsewhere.

http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/06/technological_a.html

Sean -- the difference between Wikipedia and the New York Times is that with the latter, there is an attempt by reporters and editors to get it right BEFORE publication, just as is done with Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's not perfect but it aims to be AT THE START. It's the hierarchy approach Nick has written about, and he's also noted that Wikipedia is migrating in that direction, even as it maintains the bottom-up mythology.

Nick -- thanks for adding the observation about the error introduced in the text. In yesterday's Wall Street Journal front page story on plagiarism at Ohio University, one defense given of lifting pages of text without attribution was that the lifter might not have paraphrased it accurately. So if we want accuracy we have to accept theft?

Noel -- one of the ironies of the modern information age is that the bounty of information seems to discourage pursuit of original insights, with humanity instead settling for repurposing what is already there. As my wife put it last night: "Sometimes it's better when people keep reinventing the wheel."

"Plagiarism is plagiarism, my friend. What you're saying is that the end justifies the means, even if the means is plagiarism. Some of us would disagree."

Note that you seem to deliberately ignore the thrust of my comment. As I have said, if you care to actually read my post, is that the lack of attribution IS a problem. I don't disagree with you there.

I also wanted you to state clearly, (as in yes or no) whether or not you feel there is a copyright violation here. You have not yet stated this.

The point, though that I am making is that Patrick Ross is a wikipedia contributor now, because by virtue of his criticism, wikipedia has improved. (added an entry, and this entry will shortly be modified to accommodate his criticisms)

This is the critical element of open source--it has subsumed the work of its critics, so that the critics, are in fact working to improve open source.

sub·sume (səb-sūm') pronunciation
tr.v., -sumed, -sum·ing, -sumes.
To classify, include, or incorporate in a more comprehensive category or under a general principle:

“The evolutionarily later always subsumes and includes the evolutionarily earlier” (Frederick Turner).

[Medieval Latin subsūmere : Latin sub-, sub- + Latin sūmere, to take.]

So, thank you, Patrick Ross wikipedia contributor.

I too prefer accuracy over doubtfullness.

The "Open Source Process" that people speak of has yet to prove that it can be applied at all sucessfully when the end product is purported to be knowledge. All the arguments against wikipedias truthyness describe the self correction process, but none of them address the fact that the corrections may be wrong or introduce further errors.

As for plagarism, anyone who cant understand that simple idea probably does not have much business contributing to "knowledge" in the first place.

"The "Open Source Process" that people speak of has yet to prove that it can be applied at all sucessfully when the end product is purported to be knowledge."

Well the corrections that are noted in the later post on Wikipedia so that the process, does, in fact work.

The Nature article was convincing, and, the more you criticize Wikipedia, the more you make it better, because your criticisms are later incorporated into the articles.

Similarly, meta-criticisms are incorporated into the process.

Continuous process of self-improvement, just like the linux kernel.

"just like the linux kernel"

Not really. Actually not at all since the two things are used so very differently. One can choose which version of the linux kernel to use and stick with a known stable version. Ever time the machine boots, the same kernel will be used and one deals with a known element. A stable kernel can have years of uptime and reliability.

Wikipedia however is a moving target. One cant choose which version of Wikipedia they will use. One never really knows whether one will find accurate informaiton, vandalism or subtle manipulation of content.

Sorry for your time.... Why i can't see images on this resource?
My Browser is: Opera.
Thank you.