Mon 1st November 2010, 3:43pm
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Mon 1st November 2010, 10:47am)
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 1st November 2010, 12:11am)
So the real question to be answered here is who did Rlevse piss off so badly that his Cabal shield was punctured? Normally if a Cabalista were to be accused of plagiarism, the shield would have protected them, usually by finding some way to dismiss the accuser as a crank/troll/sockpuppet/meatpuppet/etc. The fact that Rlevse was not protected suggests that he had lost favor.
Virtually everyone on Wikipedia can be accused of some sort of violation of the rules or another, because the rules are so antinomic; avoiding the consequences of such accusations is almost entirely a factor of who your friends and enemies are.
Not so sure about this. There's a lot of pride here.
Those at the core of the FA process have put a lot of time into it, and are often among Wikipedia's most educated, and most creative writers. They have a status as an elite - and when one of their own punctures that, they are not happy at all. Rightly so.
Many of them also have some academic experience, and in academia plagiarism is the biggest of cardinal sins. Anyone who has marked essays will pride themselves on spotting plagiarism - because failure to do so undermines both research and, indeed, education itself.
You can knock the FA process as claiming more than it can deliver. I am personally very critical of it. Its biggest problem is that it is simply too generalist to deliver. Reviewers, even good ones, seldom have any competency in the particular field they are reviewing, and (for other reasons) FA candidates tend to be quite specialist. I've gone through the process twice and my experience was that reviewers tended to focus on syntax and prose rather than content.
Plagiarism is actually fairly hard to spot. You have to access the sources and read them carefully, comparing them to the article. That's a long and laborious practice. It is also NOT how most plagiarism is spotted in academia. Most plagiarism is spotted because the subject specialist who is reviewing the work, or marking the essay, is already deeply familiar with literature in the field. So he tends to read something, think "that sounds familiar" and go checking. Either that, or he's scrutinising the work of one particular individual because he's already suspicious about their standards.
Ultimately the strength and weakness of the FA is that it requires the writers to be competent. I'm somewhat embarrassed by my old FAs that I childishly considered "fine", and work on improving them when I have time. I'm certain that some of my old writing probably contained some plagiarism as well; in that case, the fact that I've stayed away from the articles helps in rewriting and cleaning up those issues.
Since then, the quality of my writing has increased, and my own standards for what I submit to FA has also risen. Many of the well-regarded FA writers follow similar practices of "it's ready when I feel like I've given it my all", and those aren't the articles we have to worry about; for their unwitting missteps and lack of coverage in an area or whatever problems, they're still solid and among the best Wikipedia (and the internet) can offer.
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 1st November 2010, 2:39pm)
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Mon 1st November 2010, 6:47am)
Many of them also have some academic experience, and in academia plagiarism is the biggest of cardinal sins.
Besides me, who else has academic experience and cared about plagiarism?
I was the only one doing the plagiarism checks for a year and some and when I was booted no one bothered to step up.
By the way, plagiarism is easy to spot - look for a word that seems to "stylish", "fancy", or whatever. If the writing seems too good, check it. I was able to review over 250 articles at FAC for plagiarism without a problem.
Yes, occasionally you have a "gotcha" moment when the tone and diction dramatically shifts that's an indication, but frankly I've only seen that in the papers of students and idiots. Not to say Wikipedia doesn't have it's fill of both, but the more subtle and hence malicious types of plagiarism are often using more common language anyhow. News writers don't fancy themselves wordsmiths like novelists do. You're going to have a much easier time getting away with grabbing text from CNN than from Dickens.