McCain Plaigiarized WikiPedia on Georgia Crisis

Did McCain Plagiarize His Speech on the Georgia Crisis?

By Taegan Goddard | August 11, 2008 1:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
A Wikipedia editor notices some similarities between Sen. John McCain's speech today on the crisis in Georgia and the Wikipedia article on the country Georgia. They appear similar enough that most people would consider parts of McCain's speech to be derived directly from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_%28country%29&oldid=227648766

First instance:

one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)

vs.

one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)

Second instance:

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. (Wikipedia)

vs.

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. (McCain)

Third instance:

more at:
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/08/did-mccain-plagarize-his-speec.html

but if it were Obama they would be all over him, remember the speech that Obama used some of Gov. Patrick's lines (with his permission?)

I read the examples. The first 2 are almost completely lifted. The third is a dumbed down version. I thought there was something strange about his comments. It didn't sound like language from his campaign.

It's been assembled by his keystone kops kampaign.

that Georgia is a Christan nation? Weel, I'm sold. That's reason enough to stick our noses deep into this conflict.

would have had his paper on the same handed back to him in school as unacceptable for using Wikipedia as a source, if he even bothered to cite Wikipedia.

Besides, Biden had the honor to end his campaign when caught plagiarizing. I'd love to hear someone in the MSM ask McSame about cheating his speech. But it ain't never gonna happen.

Sounds about the mental level for these guys.

and leave him in Greece!

Idiots. :rofl:

I'm so sick of this shit! Over privileged asshole gets a free pass AGAIN! :puke:

never mind.

was paying enough attention to catch this?

Whoever it was, he or she was definitely on top of their game. Kudos!

and find wikipedia

and anyway, if copying from Wikipedia is an expellable offense, there are going to be a lot of empty high schools and college campuses. LOL

Usually, when you copy anything from anywhere, you must cite it properly. Otherwise, it is assumed that you are claiming credit for those words and that is called plagiarism. Copying something without citing it and implying that you wrote them is punishable under many high schools and colleges' honor codes.

I have had to render the discipline that you refer to, so I am well aware of the definition. In the estimation of many, if not most universitie, Wikipedia is not to be used as citable source material due to its nebulous content and unverified information. I am more amused that his speechwriters would use it at all .... in fact I wouldn't be surprised if that's where he got his information about Checkoslovakia. LOL

The comment I made in my post was tongue in cheek, by the way. I advise students that it's ok to use wickepedia as a jumping off place for shallow background or as a place to find examples of other cited substantive material, but not as a reliable source.

Despite various measures they've taken, it still doesn't have a consistent level of quality or adequate editorial control to ensure that even basic facts are correct. I'm only a student in academia but I guess I'm also old school in preferring books, journals and articles as reliable citation sources. Heck, even a blog post is more reliable than Wikipedia (provided of course it's a primary or secondary source).

I didn't mean to come off as criticizing you if I made that impression. But some people really don't understand the difference and I'm sure that the Republicans are one of them. I would share in your amusement over their use of Wikipedia but even Wikipedia doesn't deserve to be used in the way they were used. :p

when it's cited in papers. A book or an article has a plethora of "reliable" sources. Further more, books and articles go through a more rigorous round of critique to make all the information as correct as possible than is seen through Wiki.

That triggered an "edit war" that was only waged for the sake of ego. It was completely ridiculous. Plus, Wikipedia's conflicting policy/actions when it comes to what their focus will be. Wikipedia is only good as a casual reference and sometimes their documentation of certain trivia is more useful than those of some of the more venerable editor-controlled references (like their pop culture articles). I mean, some of the more obscure articles have amateur experts/obsessed fans contributing which can lead to more detail than a generalized summary. But their deletion of non-noteworthy articles tends to negate that more useful aspect.

Also, of course, the open editing is just prone to sabotage and vandalism by the ignorant or vainglorious.

The use of Wikipedia could probably be used as a symbol for the Republicans' overly-casual view of the accuracy/objectivity of information and their manipulation of it. It probably underscores how low McCain's already gone.

The allusion in another post to world book does it too much justice.

Anyway, I didn't take any offense at your response to my earlier post. I was mostly amused that they would use it at all rather than worried about citing it.

:hi:

I always try to make sure that people know that no offense was meant. And I'm not talking about that banal catchall phrase "no offense" that people always say when they want to say something offensive. When I want to say something offensive, I'll say it without any apology for it.

:hi:

I guess mccain's staffers aren't as good at disguising their references as we fifth-graders were.

On that basis, he may win. G-d Bless America!

but then realized it was about the Peach State! :rofl: :rofl: