[Natron the Spartan]

And that damned liberal media continues to ignore this story.

More Reactions to the McCain-Wikipedia Story

By Taegan Goddard | August 13, 2008 9:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)


Here's a round up of some of the more interesting reactions from our post on the McCain campaign's apparent use of Wikipedia:

Joe Conason: "The discovery that John McCain's remarks on Georgia were derived from Wikipedia, to put it politely, is disturbing and even depressing -- but not surprising. Under the tutelage of the neoconservatives, who revealed their superficial understanding of Iraq both before and after the invasion, he favors bellicose grandstanding over strategic thinking. So why delve deeper than a quick Google search?"

Newsweek's Andrew Romano: "I don't doubt that whomever wrote the historical passage consulted Wikipedia for a refresher course (something that the campaign wouldn't deny 'outright'). I mean, there are simply too many repeated phrases, conveniently rearranged to evade detection, to suggest anything but a schoolboy copy job."

Mark Kleiman: "Now you can't even pretend to believe it's a coincidence. If the original sentences in question came from different sources, you might give the student the benefit of the doubt, but two unattributed near-quotes from the same source? Plagiarism, beyond reasonable doubt."

Comedy Central: "That's kind of damning. But I think what really tips it off as being stolen from Wikipedia is that it's totally wrong. Everybody knows that Georgia is a state in the Southeastern United States and was one of the original Thirteen Colonies that revolted against British rule in the American Revolution."

Washington Independent: "Given that Wikipedia's founder discourages college students from citing Wikipedia as a source for their inconsequential term papers, we should probably expect someone who wants to become the leader of the free world to at least adhere to the same standard in formulating his foreign policy."

Hot Air: "Three background sentences, that is, one of which closely tracks Wikipedia's entry on Georgia, two more of which contain some phrases in common, plus a third passage that's being offered as evidence of plagiarism and ... just isn't."

Matt Yglesias: "Given that McCain, by his own admission, can't use the internet it's a bit of an ironic situation though perhaps it counts as progress of some sort."

Digital Journal: "Is consulting Wikipedia, or Britannica or any other informative sites to obtain facts that writers use for articles, speeches, blog posts or any other type of communication, considered plagiarism if the information is used but reworded to match the writer's style? "