Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: the fieryangel

http://gawker.com/5892583/five-thousand-word-blog-post-is-96-copy+pasted-wikipedia-entry

http://www.businessinsider.com/afghanistan-shootings-my-lai-massacre-vietnam-war-2012-3

...They didn't even bother to fix the formatting....

Posted by: Ottava

Once again, how is Wikipedia helping children? By teaching them that stealing is the way to go?

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

It wasn't stolen, it wasn't plagiarised. It was attributed correctly.

We have a right pair of fucking Chicken Littles here it seems.

Posted by: thekohser

Henry Blodget -- "author" of the piece, and owner of the publication.

Per Wikipedia:
"In 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He agreed to a permanent ban from the securities industry and paid a $2 million fine plus a $2 million disgorgement."

A leopard doesn't change his spots.

Posted by: the fieryangel

It's not so much the issue of not respecting the license as it is that this type of content can be used in a publication such as BI without even fixing the formatting. This is just so bogus.




That's pretty funny, actually....I suppose that Moulton would have had quite a bit to say about this one!

Posted by: Ottava

From what it seems, it implies by authorship at the top that it was his. It also only gives a link and not direct attribution, and the link is in the title. At no time does it explicitly say "mirroring Wikipedia".

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

He did indeed author the first 200 words that preceded the in your face Wikipedia attribution.

So who's going to be the first to point out what was wrong/inaccurate in the WP article and how is it likely to bring down journalism as we know it?



You really are a fuckwit aren't you Jeffery?

Posted by: Ottava

So you think people reading Business Insider know that it has become a glorified mirror for Wikipedia? That is a shame.

Posted by: the fieryangel

(a piece of advice for you Ottava....I'm got CL on ignore. It makes all the difference in the World....Try it, you'll like it....)

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

For one article, where "Wikipedia on the My Lai Massacre" in 14pt blue text (complete with link) is emblazoned across the screen, I hardly think it matters.

There are 100s of WP scrapers all over the 'net, I rather doubt one more is going to cause the sky to fall in.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Jeez, I learned about Blodget back during Web 1.0. Like many of his Web-friends in the "investment
community", he destroyed the life savings of thousands of people, by rabidly hyping dotcom stocks.

I'm amazed he didn't get any jail time. This country is very corrupt indeed. And you guys are just discovering it?

Posted by: the fieryangel

That was fast! He ended up scrubbing the WP content because of the complaints....Maybe shame is the answer!

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

Yeah, 16 Afghanis killed by an American soldier and all that gets your goat is the use of a Wikipedia article.

Talk about blinkers. Fuck me!

Posted by: Ottava

Why would the two be mutually exclusive prompters of anger?

Never been to a funeral in which people were sad but then got sad over something else too? Or got angry over something? Emotional states tend to compound quickly.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

What a load of bollocks as usual from our latent pervert.

In any case I thought WR was supposed to be critical of WP not Business Insider, or has Selina now widened the scope of WR?

Posted by: Ottava

It is obvious that BI has become just an extension of WP, and you don't seem to understand how that is a problem.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

So how many WP articles has BI mirrored then?

Posted by: thekohser

For the extra-dense-minded individuals who are still here at WR, it may be helpful for you to come to realize how often Business Insider is used to http://www.businessinsider.com/category/jimmy-wales the cult of Jimbo Wales.

Then, if you have any more questions about why we talk about Business Insider on a web forum purportedly dedicated to criticism of Wikipedia and its governors, try to frame the questions in a coherent and helpful way.

Posted by: Ottava

Too many.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Including a miniseries of topical interviews by Kamelia Angelova, who reports on such http://www.businessinsider.com/author/kamelia-angelova as dating tips for toddlers, and a $250,000 boob job.

Maybe they should do more mirroring, and less original content?

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

And your borderline between "many" and "too many" is?

Posted by: Mister Die

If people treat Wikipedia as a real encyclopedia, then that's one too many already.

Posted by: mbz1

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/13/technology/encyclopedia-britannica-books/?hpt=hp_t2 at least in publishing the books.

Well, it took 244 years for Encyclopedia Britannica books publishing to cease.
I wonder how long it will take for wikipedia to disappear for good.
Any one wants to make a prediction?

Posted by: Mister Die

Well considering that the internet is probably going to be a lot harder to... dispose of...

Posted by: mbz1

Well who knows, if in the year 2525 a man will still be alive, and, if a woman could survive, if there's no journalism, no education, no anything, but wikipedia.