<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia Tops List of Plagiarized Sources[/b]
T.H.E. Journal
Where are students finding the materials they plagiarize in their papers? According to a new study, WIkipedia tops the list for both secondary and college students. But as a category, encyclopedia sites are among the least popular ...
and more »
View the article
Comment:
QUOTE
David, have you never looked at Answers.com? I'd estimate that 80% of the content on their site is simply copied from Wikipedia. Example: http://www.answers.com/topic/monarch-butterfly So, your report here, if anything, underestimates the problem of plagiarism from Wikipedia.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 3rd November 2011, 8:59pm) 
Comment:
QUOTE
David, have you never looked at Answers.com? I'd estimate that 80% of the content on their site is simply copied from Wikipedia. Example: http://www.answers.com/topic/monarch-butterfly So, your report here, if anything, underestimates the problem of plagiarism from Wikipedia.
For once I actually agree with Kohs.
I'm surprised the obvious wasn't put out: Wikipedia probably tops list of websites with plagiarism too. People who plagiarize Wiki have a large chance of plagiarizing plagiarism.
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 4th November 2011, 7:02am)
For once I actually agree with Kohs.
Give me a kiss, then, and it'll all be better, okay?
The Turnitin study is priceless. They've just handed us a baseball bat with nails all over it.
It's spreading, too. 1 2 3 4
Time to ask Turnitin for an interview.
Here's an idea for a study: take a bunch of random topics from answers.com and Yahoo Answers,
and see how many contain material cribbed from Wikipedia.
It's spreading, too. 1 2 3 4
Time to ask Turnitin for an interview.
Here's an idea for a study: take a bunch of random topics from answers.com and Yahoo Answers,
and see how many contain material cribbed from Wikipedia.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 4th November 2011, 3:19pm)
Here's an idea for a study: take a bunch of random topics from answers.com and Yahoo Answers,
and see how many contain material cribbed from Wikipedia.
Checking a bunch of random Answers.com pages for Wikipedia content would be like checking a bunch of fathers for penises. Wouldn't this public deal between the WMF and Answers.com sort of make redundant the need for a study?
Also, it may be worth noting that Answers went private on April 14, 2011, when its stock was acquired by AFCV Holdings, LLC, a portfolio company of growth equity investor Summit Partners. AFCV probably couldn't be more secretive if it tried.
Wikipedia content is like the kind of horrible venereal disease that effects the brain. Who hell knows how far it all spreads?
Funny enough, I submitted a biology report to Turnitin today, as required, and I had 0% plagiarism on it, which...never happens. It's usually around 5-10% plagiarism, because the site considers common strings of words to be plagiarism.
I'm not sure how I managed that one, actually.
I'm not sure how I managed that one, actually.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 4th November 2011, 7:32pm)
Checking a bunch of random Answers.com pages for Wikipedia content would be like checking a bunch of fathers for penises.
Don't mention that in a Wikipedia context! Or are you proposing to check non-white fathers so the imbalance on Commons can be fixed?
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 5th November 2011, 12:49am)
Funny enough, I submitted a biology report to Turnitin today, as required, and I had 0% plagiarism on it, which...never happens. It's usually around 5-10% plagiarism, because the site considers common strings of words to be plagiarism.
I'm not sure how I managed that one, actually.
They probably never had a paper about cell meiosis in furries before.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 5th November 2011, 5:49pm)
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sat 5th November 2011, 12:49am)
Funny enough, I submitted a biology report to Turnitin today, as required, and I had 0% plagiarism on it, which...never happens. It's usually around 5-10% plagiarism, because the site considers common strings of words to be plagiarism.
I'm not sure how I managed that one, actually.
They probably never had a paper about cell meiosis in furries before.
*roll* No, Kohser, the British already beat me to that one, remember? My report was on Lophotrochozoa character traits.
Back in 2004, I think it was, I was teaching Introduction to Ethics. I strongly warned them against using Wikipedia as a source. I required digital copies of student essays. I used some service like TurnItIn (it might have been them, I forget) to determine whether the students' essays were copied.
So...I caught one student red-handed (1) copying from a website I started, (2) that I had warned them against using, (3) in an ethics class.
That's one reason I'm not too excited about teaching college anymore.
So...I caught one student red-handed (1) copying from a website I started, (2) that I had warned them against using, (3) in an ethics class.
That's one reason I'm not too excited about teaching college anymore.
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Thu 10th November 2011, 3:38pm)
Back in 2004, I think it was, I was teaching Introduction to Ethics. I strongly warned them against using Wikipedia as a source. I required digital copies of student essays. I used some service like TurnItIn (it might have been them, I forget) to determine whether the students' essays were copied.
So...I caught one student red-handed (1) copying from a website I started, (2) that I had warned them against using, (3) in an ethics class.
That's one reason I'm not too excited about teaching college anymore.
Well, here is the thing - was the site you started have the right information or the wrong information? It is always wonderful when a student plagiarizes from an incorrect source.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.