Rand Paul Plagiarized Wikipedia in Speech

[Sallow]

The way you tell the difference between hypocrisy and a tu quoque fallacy ("two wrongs make a right") is by observing all of the actions of one side.

For example, if one side made fair game out of Joe Biden/Obama for plagiarizing, but the same side then blew off Rand Paul plagiarizing, that's hypocrisy.

If one side distracts from Rand Paul plagiarizing by pointing out Joe Biden/Obama plagiarized, that's a tu quoque fallacy.

I'm of the position that repeating a wiki description of a movie isn't even plagerism at all. Its not like we all thought that was Paul's review of the movie, it was a description of the movies plot. Did anyone think that Paul watched the movie, made copious notes, then wrote a review, thus making it his own? If he claimed he did that, then used the wiki description, THAT would be plagerism because he is claiming someone "elses" work as his own.

Plagiarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may not "feel" it's "plagerism" but it absolutely is Plagiarism..

 

[paperview]

I'm of the position that repeating a wiki description of a movie isn't even plagerism at all. ...

^Click

Acquaint yourself with it.

<snip>
"All of the following are considered plagiarism:

• turning in someone else's work as your own
• copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
• failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
• giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
• changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
• copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules.

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source is usually enough to prevent plagiarism."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Given the fact that Wiki stole that line from a review in a Detroit paper, how do you know Rand did not have permission to use it from the original author?

Truly? Did you trace that back? How interesting is that?

Why don't we compare ALL the newspaper reviews and see if all that qualifies as
"consensus opinion" ?

Wiki actually has a link to it, but the page is no longer available.

 

[martybegan]

I'm of the position that repeating a wiki description of a movie isn't even plagerism at all. ...

^Click

Acquaint yourself with it.

<snip>
"All of the following are considered plagiarism:

• turning in someone else's work as your own
• copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
• failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
• giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
• changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
• copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules.

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source is usually enough to prevent plagiarism."

Doesnt seem like plagerism to me, mostly because he didnt write it down, it was a speech.

 

[martybegan]

The way you tell the difference between hypocrisy and a tu quoque fallacy ("two wrongs make a right") is by observing all of the actions of one side.

For example, if one side made fair game out of Joe Biden/Obama for plagiarizing, but the same side then blew off Rand Paul plagiarizing, that's hypocrisy.

If one side distracts from Rand Paul plagiarizing by pointing out Joe Biden/Obama plagiarized, that's a tu quoque fallacy.

I'm of the position that repeating a wiki description of a movie isn't even plagerism at all. Its not like we all thought that was Paul's review of the movie, it was a description of the movies plot. Did anyone think that Paul watched the movie, made copious notes, then wrote a review, thus making it his own? If he claimed he did that, then used the wiki description, THAT would be plagerism because he is claiming someone "elses" work as his own.

Plagiarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may not "feel" it's "plagerism" but it absolutely is Plagiarism..

How was he taking an idea and making it his own? It was a plot summary for a movie. He would be plagerizing if he claimed credit for a review of the movie, or even the movie itself, but it was a plot summary, and guess what!!! if you are both reading the same plot, your summaries are going to be pretty similar.

 

[paperview]

It was fucking verbatim.

For chrissakes! THINK!

 

[BDBoop]

It was fucking verbatim.

For chrissakes! THINK!

They can't hear you, and they sure as shit can't think. I already rode that merry-go-round just a little bit ago.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yeah, somebody get back to me when you have Obama plagiarizing.

Already did

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The way you tell the difference between hypocrisy and a tu quoque fallacy ("two wrongs make a right") is by observing all of the actions of one side.

For example, if one side made fair game out of Joe Biden/Obama for plagiarizing, but the same side then blew off Rand Paul plagiarizing, that's hypocrisy.

If one side distracts from Rand Paul plagiarizing by pointing out Joe Biden/Obama plagiarized, that's a tu quoque fallacy.

I never said that Paul plagiarizing is okay. I'm simply noting the faux outrage of those who had defended Obama for doing the same thing.

 

[flacaltenn]

The way you tell the difference between hypocrisy and a tu quoque fallacy ("two wrongs make a right") is by observing all of the actions of one side.

For example, if one side made fair game out of Joe Biden/Obama for plagiarizing, but the same side then blew off Rand Paul plagiarizing, that's hypocrisy.

If one side distracts from Rand Paul plagiarizing by pointing out Joe Biden/Obama plagiarized, that's a tu quoque fallacy.

I'm of the position that repeating a wiki description of a movie isn't even plagerism at all. Its not like we all thought that was Paul's review of the movie, it was a description of the movies plot. Did anyone think that Paul watched the movie, made copious notes, then wrote a review, thus making it his own? If he claimed he did that, then used the wiki description, THAT would be plagerism because he is claiming someone "elses" work as his own.

Plagiarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may not "feel" it's "plagerism" but it absolutely is Plagiarism..

also from wikipedia....

Wikipedia:No original research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material&#8212;such as facts, allegations, and ideas&#8212;for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)

The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged&#8212;but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.

Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.

Pretty hard to get a plagiarism conviction on "stealing" material that BY DEFINITION can contain NO ORIGINAL CONTENT and is deemed to be CONSENSUS common knowledge.

All being done by VOLUNTEER (mostly) ANONYMOUS authors with no NEW copyrighting.
This would be akin to granting patents for intellectual property that is totally sourced from EXISTING ART.

So when the Wiki says "even if not actually attributed" ---- are they ENCOURAGING plagiarism?? Or are they amplifying the concept of "common knowledge" and "consensus editing" of EXISTING facts and knowledge?

 

[Avorysuds]

I'm of the position that repeating a wiki description of a movie isn't even plagerism at all. ...

^Click

Acquaint yourself with it.

<snip>
"All of the following are considered plagiarism:

• turning in someone else's work as your own
• copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
• failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
• giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
• changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
• copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules.

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source is usually enough to prevent plagiarism."

Everyday, every word you say or type... every idea, thought blah blah blah is some form of plagiarism. You made up no word, no thought completely on your own and you do not credit the people that did with every post.

Plagiarism is used when literally copying something turning it into a tangible. Like homework from a student. Being able to repeat the facts from a documentary, or give correct statistics from a study is usually considered a good form of plagiarism... People respect and look up to those that can repeat and remember things correctly.


Now I admit I have not watched the video, I simply don't care. We have a President that can't even correctly quote his own Healthcare bill, fails to answer simple questions about many of his policies (including his HC takeover, ACA) and I open up a thread where people try and destroy a guy over reviews of a movie....

Maybe you guys should look at Obama spending 150 billion more a year than Bush on military. Or more people being on welfare than not, or the eradication of the middle class under Obama, the NSA spying on citizens and allies, more wars, expansion of the Patriot act, the continuation of the Bush era tax cuts under a different Obama friendly name or any other host of issues where Obama claimed one thing, then became president and did a full 180.


That is more important than wtf ever this side show is supposed to be about. There is plenty to focus on, meaningful stuff, why are you people caring about something that means 100% nothing? It will be gone out of your minds after a few days for the rest of your lives and it's only relevant because for a second in time you need it to be, not because it is important in any way.

 

[Avorysuds]

I'm of the position that repeating a wiki description of a movie isn't even plagerism at all. Its not like we all thought that was Paul's review of the movie, it was a description of the movies plot. Did anyone think that Paul watched the movie, made copious notes, then wrote a review, thus making it his own? If he claimed he did that, then used the wiki description, THAT would be plagerism because he is claiming someone "elses" work as his own.

Plagiarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may not "feel" it's "plagerism" but it absolutely is Plagiarism..

also from wikipedia....

Wikipedia:No original research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)

The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.

Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.

Pretty hard to get a plagiarism conviction on "stealing" material that BY DEFINITION can contain NO ORIGINAL CONTENT and is deemed to be CONSENSUS common knowledge.

All being done by VOLUNTEER (mostly) ANONYMOUS authors with no NEW copyrighting.
This would be akin to granting patents for intellectual property that is totally sourced from EXISTING ART.

You win, but that won't stop the mindless.... They only want a distraction from their demi-god failing repeatedly. It's strange because these people have failed at destroy Rand on this issue, they are ignorant of what plagiarism is, yet they will in fact continue.

You can't steal that what does not belong to someone. BUT WHO CARES, it's about mindless attacking a Republican!

 

[paperview]

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

You can't just lift whole sections of another work verbatim and claim it as your own.

Gawd.

 

[flacaltenn]

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

You can't just lift whole sections of another work verbatim and claim it as your own.

Gawd.

What the fuck is wrong with us is we don't spend a lot of time watching MSNBC.. And more time actually WORKING on original content and ideas that aren't party propaganda.

We're talking about a the plot of a movie.. NOT the tapping of Angela Merkel's cell phone.
Get some sense of proportion and maybe we'll look more "normal" to you..

If Rand Paul was a movie reviewer --- I might be concerned. Even if the "theft" was from the "NO ORIGINAL CONTENT" Wiki.. Because it would show a degree of incompetence.. Wouldn't it?

 

[Pennywise]

It's funny how a bunch of people who always hated Rand Paul are saying that he's doomed. Rand Paul's doing fine among people who don't love socialism and big government.

In other words, he’s popular among those who are as ignorant as he.

Yes, the stupid/ignorant charge, the left's mantra to toss willy-nilly as though it's a dog with an actual bite.

And you are a fucking faggot. Thanks.

Luv,

Pennywise

 

[Zander]

I for one am FAUXTRAGED!!!

Here's who to blame!!!

Yes, I know she has nothing to do with this story, but look at her crazy eyes!!



Is that enough of a distraction from the Obama trainwrecks?

 

[Avorysuds]

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

You can't just lift whole sections of another work verbatim and claim it as your own.

Gawd.

Did he claim it was his own? Like did he say it was his own... Be very careful, you might make yourself look even stupider than you already have.

 

[paperview]

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

You can't just lift whole sections of another work verbatim and claim it as your own.

Gawd.

Did he claim it was his own? Like did he say it was his own... Be very careful, you might make yourself look even stupider than you already have.

Yes. He DIDN'T cite it. Unless you cite it, you claim it as your own.

This has been discussed. All he had to do was say..according to Wiki.

Instead he lifted whole sections verbatim, Lazy and ethically wrong.

(Whoever made the claim earlier this was a chargeable offense is nutso.)

It was wrong. He'll have to answer for this. In the whole scheme, no big whoop, but he WILL need to comment further. It's going to come up.

Wanna bet it will?

 

[paperview]

He'll likely blame it on his speechwriter, but he needs to answer for this lazy, ethical lapse.

 

[flacaltenn]

He'll likely blame it on his speechwriter, but he needs to answer for this lazy, ethical lapse.