I have been plagiated!

[Eleatic Guest]

I just wanted to go to bed, read a small bed-time story on ancient engineering and guess what I did all of a sudden discover in my reading...someone plagiated me! And the sad thing is it a quite serious publication and they stole it from Wikipedia!

But judge for yourself:

My version, stable from March 2008 to May 2009: Wikipedia

And now the plagiate (obvious rip-offs in bold):

The most grandiose example was the project accomplished prior to cutting a canal through the Isthmus of Corinth, called Diolkos, which means dia = from the other side and olkos = transportation. This was a track or portage road 6.5 km long, constructed along the western coast of the isthmus, used by ships loaded. on special undercarriages to cross from the Ionian to the Aegean sea. The original construction of the Diolkos dates to around 600 B.C. and was used for more than 1,000 years. The Diolkos was the first long distance heavy transport guided wheel system prior to the advent of the railway. (see section Ancient railway) By using the Diolkos, ships reduced the time required to sail between the Aegean and the Ionian seas (see section function). It consisted of a very long hauling platform, with parallel and equidistant wheeled carts that could bear the weight of an entire ship.

Version of: Cesare Rossi, Flavio Russo, Ferruccio Russo: Ancient Engineers’ Inventions. Precursors of the Present, Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009, ISBN: 978-90-481-2252-3, pp. 164f.

Although they tried to mix it up, the different modular components still reveal the original source. And the statements not marked bold in the text, you can find in essence in the Wiki article, too. The hilarious thing is, to cover up their plagiarism, they even misrepresented some facts such as that the Diolkos was used a thousand years (in fact 650 or so) and that it was 6.5 km long (in fact estimates range from 6 to 8.5 km).

Isn't this low?

[M. Demetrius]

Let's get up a contubernium or two and go flog 'em with bull nettles. That'll teach them a lesson! :x !:

[Praefectusclassis]

Just being annoying here, but are you sure? A Wiki Article is supposed to be a concise summary of the facts, right? So it's likely that the same facts (the different modular components) would show up in other condensed repertoires. For instance, how else are you going to give the literal translation of diolkos?

[Eleatic Guest]

Just being annoying here, but are you sure? A Wiki Article is supposed to be a concise summary of the facts, right? So it's likely that the same facts (the different modular components) would show up in other condensed repertoires. For instance, how else are you going to give the literal translation of diolkos?

Yes, I think it is a plagiate. And I am more sorry for them than it bugs me. The thing is I read the whole available references in English, German and French, and I know who argued for what in which tone. For example, the whole railway interpretation, its centrality in the argumentation, you can only find at M.J.T. Lewis, not with other scholars. The most revealing evidence is that they found all that important which I found in the WP article important, too, and their sequence is similar. That's how I realized the plagiate. For example, in the very first sentence they put the Diolkos in the wider context of the later canal attempts. Not that unusual, but not often done either. Most articles start with something else, the rise of navigation, of heavy good transport, the strategical importance, Corinth, the archaeological evidence etc. And then they use the see also of WP verbatim (" cutting a canal through the Isthmus of Corinth"). And so forth with the rest.

I have further indirect proof that they must have consulted Wikipedia without citing it. In their discussion of paddle wheel boats (p. 174), they depict exactly this miniature which gave me Ariator from this forum for upload. The cutting edges are exactly the same.

[Epictetus]

It seems some people view wikipedia as some sort of open-source treasure trove that they can claim as their own work. I've noticed direct copy-and-pastes from wikipedia in many different articles. However, most of this plagarism seems to be of the amateur variety, like on someone's website. To see it happening in (supposedly) respectible, traditional publishing is a bit unsettling.

[Praefectusclassis]

I see what you mean, and yes, I agree, it is somewhat unsettling to see WP quoted especially without even bothering to reference it!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I have heard of this tramway before mind you.... :wink:

And even more blasphemous, I managed to drive right over the damn canal and totally missed it!! :oops:

[Jona Lendering]

someone plagiated me!

I am afraid we will have to learn to live with this. At least one student plagiarized a text I wrote, obtained a scholarship, and is now employed by a major European university. I have been toying with the idea to expose him, but what can I win? The man will be reprimanded, that's all. He won't lose his job, even though he ought to be carried out of academe covered with tar and feathers. It's unfair that somebody else gets a good job, benefitting from a piece I wrote.

Here's another story. I was travelling through eastern Turkey with some friends, one of them a young woman. We went swimming in Lake Van. One of our company, an older man, could not keep her eyes off her, and later wrote an article about her on his blog. Although I managed to convince him that he ought to remove it, the article has survived on urlfan.com. Thank God that urlfan has recently removed the tags that used to be added to the archived article: otherwise, that woman would always be associated with her bikini.

I fear that nothing we write will remain our own; which means that we can not ask for credit, and can not blame people who have made mistakes, because even if they remove it, it will continue to haunt us. I think we will have to reinvent intellectual authorship completely.

[Lýsandros]

Wikipedia is now icreasingly becoming a source of "trustworthy" information not only for regular people, but also for professional writers and journalists. I remember one sociologic experiment that happened a year ago, where immediately after the death of one popular singer, the guy responsible for the experiment posted a quote on wikipedia that was never said by the singer. Guess what! The next day, the quote appeared in five respectful journals and newspapers around the world People have stopped using references and tend to argue with no evidence. Sad.

[Jona Lendering]

The next day, the quote appeared in five respectful journals and newspapers around the world

Even worse: these newspapers were immediately used as reference that the dead singer had really said that. I've tried to find the article in which it was all explained, but couldn't find it anymore.

[Lýsandros]

I have found it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 92919.html

It was a composer, not a singer.. my apologies

[Epictetus]

It happened to the Guardian too. Here an editor makes a rather cautious statement about it.

I do agree with this, though:

they shouldn't use information they find there if it can't be traced back to a reliable primary source.

Actually, this is probably the main thing I use Wikipedia for. If I'm looking for something on Pliny, for instance, I often open his wikipedia page and immediately scroll down to the "external links" or footnotes to see what kind of sources are available. Many are online, so you can immediately follow links and start looking at them. Often I find this is easier than googling, where you have to sift through many pages of links that may not be anything that you are interested in.

[Jona Lendering]

If I'm looking for something on Pliny, for instance, I often open his wikipedia page and immediately scroll down to the "external links" or footnotes to see what kind of sources are available. Many are online, so you can immediately follow links and start looking at them.

Be careful, though; many online sources are rather carelessly published. Parts are left out, for example, or pieces are inserted, or what was a note has become part of the main text.

Example of something left out: often on my own pages. I quote something with a purpose, and leave out what distracts. It's indicated with "[...]" but I have seen my own translations back without those indicators.

Example of inserts: most online versions of the Cyrus Cylinder contain lines that are actually not there, but were part of the propaganda of the late Shah. I have discussed this here.

Example of footnotes becoming part of the main text: the reason why I made the Life of Apollonius available. Usually the result of poor scanning.

LacusCurtius' Bill Thayer proofreads meticulously. Roger Pearse (Tertullian.org) immediately corrects mistakes others spot. I try to do the same, but I am easily distracted. Perseus is beyond hope of redemption and best avoided.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, one reason why many people have lost faith in the media, in all it's forms. :?
Even local newspapers here in Aberdeen, with all the sources on the oil industry at their fingertips, make the most rediculous statements regarding
oilfield related events.... :roll:

[M. Demetrius]

has recently removed the tags that used to be added to the archived article: otherwise, that woman would always be associated with her bikini.

Hmm. I'm expecting the photos in question will be posted on here soon?