I have been plagiated!

[Jona Lendering]

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?

Of course, your wish is my command, sort of.

[Bill Thayer]

Since I got mentioned in this funny but awful discussion — I too try to correct every mistake people alert me to, and fast. Some are very easy (typos from transcriptions of print material I have in my office), others much harder (book not in office, for example; or statement of mine that needs adjustment or was downright uninformed), and some are not mistakes at all, but someone out there wants to impose themselves on what I say (the Macedonian question is probably the worst whenever it rears its head).

And I too have been the source of stuff that "got loose".... My worst so far, that I know of, was a passage in Dio Cassius (60.33) where, due to a one-finger slip between the abbreviation I use to type "chieftain" (chfn) and the one for "Christian" (chrn), I made the ancient historian call Caractacus a "barbarian Christian". This quickly made its way into Wickedpedia, and from there as above, with the same results although more limited since after all who cares about Caratacus; but there are still blogs out there claiming based on my mistake, that Caratacus was a Christian.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

That wouldn't be Caratacus, the great 'christian chieftain' of the 'scottish Picts', who defeated the Romans and forced them to build a wall to stop the terrifying 'picts' from attacking them was it? :mrgreen:

[Eleatic Guest]

Again.

In Brigitte Cech: Technik der Antike, 2010, ISBN 978-3-8062-2080-3, p. 163, they reproduce exactly this photo of mine: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... itsail.jpg However, for doing that, they would have needed to comply to the license template below which specifies "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor".

But instead of crediting me (or rather my screen name), they give some shit photo credit (p. 256) to some WGB (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft = Scientific Book Association), never heard of the gangsters.

[Conal]

It's a strange feeling. I prepared a 20 page questionaire for clients used to collate info for a UK Tax Return and used it for several years.

I spotted an advert for a questionaire which was purporting to do the same thing for sale for £75 so bought it hoping it would be better than my home made job .... you guessed it they sold me back a not very well disguised version of my questionaire hock:

I was unable to make a fuss as my bosses had other things going with these guys and politically it wasn't considred worth it.

Some people have got some kneck :roll:

[D B Campbell]

In Brigitte Cech: Technik der Antike, 2010, ISBN 978-3-8062-2080-3, p. 163, they reproduce exactly this photo of mine.

I thought Theiss could afford to make their own photos.

(Some of us have noticed a certain prolific Osprey author "re-badging" other folks' photos, too.)

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

And what do you think of all those poor ancient writers who have been plagiarized beyond recognition and on whose bones present day scholars earn their living !

:evil:

Suck it up, ANYTHING you write on Wikipedia is NOT copyrighted... make your own page with your own copyrights, then you have a valid point.

M.VIB.M.

[Eleatic Guest]

In Brigitte Cech: Technik der Antike, 2010, ISBN 978-3-8062-2080-3, p. 163, they reproduce exactly this photo of mine.

I thought Theiss could afford to make their own photos.

(Some of us have noticed a certain prolific Osprey author "re-badging" other folks' photos, too.)

After flipping though the pages, I am fairly sure she also took 6-7 other photos from Wikipedia, but in these instances she was clever enough to replace them with very similar ones from the publisher (or wherever), but the stimulus for choosing these motives and the selection down to the individual cut of the pics she definitely got from WP.

She also took several of my literary references from the articles on the Diolkos and the Rudder which I am fairly certain that she has done so, since both of these are very unusual refs. Also, she definitely read the WP article on the Pont-Saint-Martin Bridge (a bridge which has been by now eminently underreported in printed sources) as she gives the corrected numbers for the span and rise which are not to be found in the general literature yet. I know because she also highlighted that it is a segmental arch bridge, a feature which I stressed and there are more parallels to the German version, so this cluster is suspicious again.

But the book is good otherwise. Unsurprisingly by now perhaps, she shows that she is a good synthesizer of the current scholarship. It's just that this double standard of some scholars of looking condescendingly on Wikipedia on the one hand, but secretly copying from it is what pisses me off. Cech certainly breached the 3-CCA copyrights by not crediting me by (screen) name which the license template below that pic explicitly requires the user to do so. Of course, she did not want a "Wikipedia" or funny screen name to appear in her serious book, but then she should not have taken the pic. Poor class.

[Eleatic Guest]

Suck it up, ANYTHING you write on Wikipedia is NOT copyrighted... make your own page with your own copyrights, then you have a valid point.

I am perfectly aware of that and if people take things, pics and views I introduced into WP, I am actually happy about it, since it tells me that my contributions could not have been so subterraneanly bad, but made some sense. BUT this double standard of publicly denouncing WP, but secretly adopting its contents is what enrages me.

It also shows the power of WP which I find a bit disturbing by now. If scholars believe they cannot do without it, then who can? Actually, the power of WP is such that some of its most prolific contributors determine much more the general public outlook on certain topics than many scholars can ever hope to achieve through their publications. Take over, say, the article on Ancient Roman Architecture, which gets tens of thousand clicks each month, write it - subtly - from your viewpoint and in a few years time, you will see how your interpretation has permeated in many printed sources.

In a way the power WP yields is scaring. I even believe world history is being rewritten on a large scale in WP, since for the first time in history, all different religious, ideological, national, ethnic, economic etc. views and outlooks from all corners of the world come together under a single umbrella, and need to be made fit into the article into a consistent piece of information. This process is like working with an axe, some interpretations are chopped away and lose out, others put to greater emphasis and become dominant. At the end, people all over the planet will have rather convergent views on everything.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Stefan, you are right about WK and your concerns, since it is used as an actual source more and more.... That is why here at Univ it is a SIN to quote any info of WK in anything you write as a student...

nothing wrong with using new information or even new ideas, but if you do not state in your books you took the stuff from WK its just wrong..

However we also do not need a youtube situation in which regular amateur people get punished in their creativity for using a song or excerpts of it in a video they painfully edit...

fair use policy should also count for literature and other forms of information.

M.VIB.M.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Stefan, did you write a letter to Theiss? I would do so.

[Jona Lendering]

Stefan, did you write a letter to Theiss? I would do so.

I agree.