After nearly two decades of sitting around crying about the end of the Cold War, Russia has decided to try that whole world domination thing again- this time they have their eyes set on a smaller, less bad-ass target: Georgia. No, no, not the state! The country! Georgia “is a transcontinental country partially in Eastern Europe and partially in Southwest Asia in the Caucasus region” (Wikipedia).
You see how I cited Wikipedia there? That’s what you’re supposed to do when you take information from a source and use it for your own reports, papers, and speeches. But it’s also important to note that Wikipedia isn’t exactly looked at very highly by the academic community based on the fact that it’s very user friendly.
Presidential hopeful John McCain gave a speech in Erie, Pennsylvania, earlier today and managed to stick it to the Russians, referring to their attempt to cripple the pro-U.S. government in Georgia.
If you read the transcript of his speech, it would seem that John McCain actually does know how to use the Internet, as well as Wikipedia! Or at least he employs speech writers who are very familiar with the two. Below are a few excerpts from John McCain’s speech and the seemingly corresponding Wikipedia text:
John McCain: “one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion”
Wikipedia: “one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion”
John 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.”
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.”
John McCain: “Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms.”
Wikipedia: “In 2003, Shevardnadze (who won reelection in 2000) was deposed by the Rose Revolution, after Georgian opposition and international monitors asserted that the 2 November parliamentary elections were marred by fraud. The revolution was led by Mikheil Saakashvili, Zurab Zhvania and Nino Burjanadze, former members and leaders of Shavarnadze’s ruling party. Mikheil Saakashvili was elected as President of Georgia in 2004. Following the Rose Revolution, a series of reforms was launched to strengthen the country’s military and economic capabilities.”
Now the third instance is a bit more of a paraphrase when you compare it to the first two, but it’s obviously similar information and still requires a citation. Citations are usually needed when information is not considered common knowledge. Whether or not the above info is considered common knowledge is debatable, especially in the third excerpt.
The first two, though, seem to be bits of history that aren’t exactly hidden deep in some lockbox. The third, at best, takes a bit more in-depth knowledge of the events in that country. So sure, it definitely looks like there’s a bit of plagiarism going on here, but it’s not quite Usher stealing beats from fucking GarageBand and making it a hit song. Our own investigation into that particular scandal may be published here soon…
I am not here to defend McCain one way or another, but next time his speechwriter should take an extra minute to conceal the fact that his knowledge of foreign countries comes solely from Wikipedia.
My advice: go dust off the Encyclopedia Britannica at your mom’s house and use that entry. Nobody reads books anymore and it’s more dignified.
As it says in the Bible in the book of Ecclesiastes: “There is nothing new under the Sun.”
August 11th, 2008 at 10:06 PM
why should anyone cite wikipedia?? it’s not academic journal it’s not peer reviewed. who knows who edits those articles. wikipedia is the cancer of academic writings….
August 12th, 2008 at 9:13 AM
@sajag: There is some situations in life where when you have no idea about what you’re talking about you’re best bet is to simply stay quiet.
Wikipedia is a community driven website but also has thousands of administrators that controls the content of the website when there is any abuses from the users. Plus each articles MUST be provided with trusted references in order to be considered valid otherwise it tells you in big bold at the top that the article has no reference and most quote / citations / facts are having a sweet link at the bottom of the page referring to its source.
The information on wikipedia may not be entirely valid at a 100% but the fact that even mcCain’s speech writers are using it as a reference is showing its notoriety. You just need to learn to use it, if you’re not sure about an info just figure out a trusted reference to confirm but most of what you’ll find on it is verified.
And the point of that article is not to prove if wikipedia is a valid reference or not, it is simply that if you are using references from somewhere wherever it is, just friggin’ take the time to give credits to those who deserves it.
-A.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:49 AM
sajag is correct- wikipedia is not an academically trusted source. but i have no idea why he or she posed their comment as a question, because it’s exactly what was stated very clearly in the second paragraph.
globalvisoalziationer0z or whatever is right about wiki being well moderated, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still most definitely not an academically trusted source. and mccain’s speech writers using it says more about their laziness than wikipedia’s notoriety. if mccain gave you a big mac and called it gourmet cuisine, you wouldn’t consider it a testament to ronald mcdonald’s notoriety, you’d call it a fat load of bullshit.
the point of the article was that if you’re gonna plagiarize, don’t fucking do it from wikipedia, the most obvious of all places. that’s like copying the back of a novel and calling it a book report. any college kid who has ever written an essay knows better, and so would our next president if he… you know, knew anything about the internet.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:23 AM
@Skwerl although wikipedia is not an academically trusted source, most of the content on it is already a big copy and paste of the main sources and references that are often coming from trusted academic sources. There is nobody who is enough retarded to start rewriting the whole thing from scratch. So why should I bother to look somewhere else and complicated things when I can simply follow the references from it and fall on a so “trusted” version of the exact same content.
And I don’t think that the fact someone just knows how to use the different tools adequately it makes them lazy, I don’t think that because you wasted time to research in a book to get the details you need when you have the exact same info all at the same place makes your speech sounds more brilliant.
I just think as long as you plagiarize you should simply give credits to whom it belongs.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:07 AM
P.S. and by that I don’t mean Wikipedia but the reference where it comes from.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:05 AM
he doesn’t need to know how to use internet. he has someone do it for him. if you have money, you don’t have to know everything.. just pay someone do it for you..