Discussion for article #226622
Not just a plagiarist but a Wiki plagiarist - the lowest grade of plagiarist.
7 Likes
Still, nice to see a break from all the non-stop Ferguson coverage. Back to our roots!
4 Likes
You canāt plagiarize the news. You really canāt plagiarize statistics, either. A new theory, an fresh anaysis drawing new conclusions, text written in a fresh and unique way, these things can be plagiarized. How many news outlets right now are āplagiarizingā one another by using the same facts about Ferguson, Missouri?
28 Likes
They owe us a goodie like this.
Never thought much of him to begin with, he came off as a fraud. He is a typical Republican masquerading as member of the intelligentsia. Looks as if I was right.
1 Like
Yeah, this seems to be kinda weak sauce in the plagiarism dept.
19 Likes
Isnāt it general knowledge if itās in an encyclopedia entry? Was he just using material from the same source the wiki editor used? I thought if you could get the same info from a handful of sources it was general knowledge?
Obviously if he uses stats they came from somewhere. Do you have to cite sources for every stat you use?
This seems pretty minor to me (paraphrase of SpacelySpaceSprockets comment on 08-19-14, all rights reserved).
7 Likes
Josh better stop citing statistics, or else Iāll accuse him of plagiarism.
7 Likes
He cites the same facts. He doesnāt seem to use the same words. Thatās not plagiarism unless they think that āfactsā are a creative work that one person makes up & then owns.
14 Likes
Yes. I will still anxiously await an example of plagiarism. For now I havenāt yet encountered one.
5 Likes
Weak sauce. Very very weak sauce. And I have zero opinion about Zakaria positive or negative.
9 Likes
This canāt be true. How can you question the integrity of a journalist that had a secret meeting with Cheney, Wolfowitz et al where they discussed this super cool idea of how to justify a war with Iraq who then went on to be a cheerleader during the run up to the war, all the time not revealing his participation in this little meeting?
I refuse to believe this. NOT.
3 Likes
Its not hard to give credit where credit is due. I just donāt get it. Why not give attribution? It doesnāt make you less of a journalist or reporter or writer, providing you have some independent thoughts of your own to provide. It just means you might have to take the time to provide footnotes. Lazy putz.
But he did use the same words:
The original:
According to a May/June survey by the Levada Center, 52 percent believe corruption among the countryās leadership is higher now than it was even in the notorious 1990s (in 2007, only 16 percent of respondents felt this way).
Fareeds:
According to a survey by the Levada Center, 52% of Russians believe corruption among the countryās leadership is higher now than it was even in the 1990s. (In 2007 only 16% of respondents felt this way.)
Fareed simply removed ānotoriousā and āMay/Juneā.
5 Likes
Time's website still says Zakaria is a regular columnist in the magazine and a contributor to the website. His most recent article appears to have been published in April.
Heās setting up the templates for his new column, āJailhouse Schlock!ā
I agree. We are talking about him āplagiarizingā reports of studies and government reports, not original thoughts, insights, or other original work. The original producers of the reports are credited. Lifting a phrase or two describing a third partyās report of statistics does not a plagiarist make. As much as I dislike Zakaria (he is too facile, too poorly read, and has made a career out of stating the obvious) he committed no crime here.
8 Likes
Iām bemused by the first example representing any kind of plagiarism. The Wikipedia might have been the source (or both went to the same .gov source) but the material was thoroughly restated and couched with opinion/context.
The second example is much clearer, simple word removal.
1 Like
Iām kinda unimpressed. How many different ways are there to say the same damn thing, and how hard should someone have to work to change the obvious wording for some set of facts, just to get the plagiarism squad off their backs?
7 Likes
This isnāt plagerism, its quoting the same statistics, and even cites the source. This is character smear.
8 Likes