I can’t help feeling sorry for the editor in chief of Wired. It’s been revealed that Chris Anderson’s new book, Free, has passages that are suspiciously close to those sported by Wikipedia. Oh Chris. He puts it down to a mistake, or lapse of judgement, and refers to the passages as his “screw ups”.
Apparently the pilfered text ended up in there when he changed the format and included footnotes in the main text, then failed to find to good way of citing information. A silly mistake or laziness probably, but really, in these days of easily detectable plagiarism one you shouldn’t be making. And from Wikipedia no less, only one of the most beloved providers of information for the Web 2.0 generation. You’d think someone with such a prominent position in the world of tech journalism would know better.
The transgression was spotted by blogger Waldo Jaquith and reminds us all that original content is the only thing that people should be happy paying for these days.
Lynsey May 
Good point, but plagerism extends far past an individual site. Unfortunately, a good thing, the Internet, makes process much easier. Some folks mistake copying for research. The real problem comes when your discussing a very discreet fact. There’s only so many ways to describe those. Sandy
http://www.sandysays1.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Too true, and with duplicate content cluttering the net more and more as each day passes and facts being replicated further and further from their original sources (and people like me blogging about news items!) it seems its a problem only set to increase. But there’s always a way to put an original spin, and some original though into, something! 🙂
cheers for stopping by
LikeLike