Reading Notes 3/24/2007

"More on Plagiarism Detection" Sept. 24, '06 -Clancy

• I think I am like Clancy. I wouldn't mind bringing in my paper trail on an essay if it meant that those who were plagiarising got caught.
• Clancy makes a good point: easier to plagiarize and easier for professors to prove plagiarism
• While more work for the professor/teacher, I think Clancy has a point here: establish communication with students. Watch their writing process closely
• Googling passages from the paper (a teacher thinks might be plagiarized) is also a great idea
• Way to call out Turnitin.com...it's a business, just like any other...interested in $
• I think if a teacher/professor is going to call a student in b/c of possibly plagiarizing, it is the teacher/professors duty to at least tell the student what he/she is getting called in for. Give him or her the opportunity to present sources. It should become obvious during the meeting if the sources are legit.
• I'm looking forward to discussing this article further in class. I'd really like some info on what Turnitin.com is all about. Maybe I'll do some looking around on the site. I've heard of it, but I'm not all that familiar with its features.

"Wikipedia to Seek Proof of Credentials" -Brian Bergstein

• Wikipedia verifying credentials, but authors can still remain anonymous
• "W/O a lot of hassle" isn't that mainly what the Internet is about? At least when it comes to people using the Internet for leisure...if the features of a website create too much of a hassle, the website probably won't be able to keep very many users
• Interesting that Ryan Jordan was lying, yet got promoted to arbitrator. I am sure there are many other cases like this same one that haven't come to the surface. I can understand why professor wouldn't want students to be able to use this site as a source. Scholarly sources are the way to go.
• Anonymity of Wikipeda="a frequent cause of mischief"
• I am amazed by all the articles Wikipedia houses in other languages
• Jimmy Wales, mockingly, "It's always inappropriate to win an argument by flashing your credentials, and even more so if those credentials are inaccurate" (2). In regards to Ryan Jordan

"Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade" Oct. 27 '06 -Brock Read

• Alexander M.C. Halavais "Dr. al-Halawi" added errors to Wikipedia articles (Wow, surprised to read that less than 3 hours later all of his incorrect additions were fixed)
• Wikipedia and its amateur editors
• But, using Wikipedia as a source? I'm not sure I want to use a source for my papers that "does a FAIRLY good job at getting its facts straight" (1).
• I can see where some academics are coming from when they say, "It devalues the notion of expertise itself." (1) Anyone can post!
• I think if experts and professors are trying to screw Wikipedia b/c they are not getting priority, that's ridiculous.
• A new site specifically for experts...Larry Sanger
• I agree, "If you can't beat the Wikipedians, join 'em."
• Wikimania...with the number of articles growing each day, how is it possible to check all for accuracy? (Now Wikipedia has made a turn toward accuracy)
• "The openness that makes Wikipedia so alluring to its contributors is precisely what discomfits scholars" (2).
• John Seigenthaler's incorrect site
• Now users must register before they post articles
• Wow, sites like answers.com pull from Wiki...who would have thought?
• Nature's findings: Wiki and Britannica on almost the same playing fields
• I think that's the cool thing...Wiki is continuing making itself better--"Mr. Rosenzweig [history prof at George Mason] notes...several Wikipedians have read his critiques and edited a number of articles in response to his concerns (3).
• A surprise to me that science articles are the strongest on Wiki
• Less articles on humanities b/c of interpretive finesse
• Unfortunate that experts are writing things and they get cut up...I can see why some scholars are turned away from Wiki
• Does Wiki have a "tendency to value anonymous communal thought over individual intellect"...group think can be a bad thing
• I like how Read puts it, Attitude Adjustment
• Wikipedia vs. Mr. Sanger's Citizendium...expert editors get final say!

"Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head" Dec. 14, 2005 -Nature

• Nature's investigation used peer review to compare Wiki to Britannica's coverage of science
• Since about the same amount of errors in both...Wiki's co-founder says this "shows the potential of Wikipedia"
• Four errors from each encyclopaedia were considered serious
• 162 minor errors in Wiki vs. 123 Britannica (seems to me like a lot of errors from both, but it does show Wiki's ability to be on almost the same playing field)
• Wiki has speed but more articles that are "poorly structured and confusing"
• New thing for Wiki=tagging articles as stable (seems like a good idea)

[Supplementary Information]

• Reviewers regarded as experts (in field long time/highly regarded by peers)
• They did not know what article was from what encyclopaedia
• Randomly selected scientific articles (based upon terms reporters would check in an encyclopaedia)

[Encyclopaedia Britannica's Rebutal] "Fatally Flawed" March 2006

• Saying Nature's research invalid
• Brit claims, what Nature said were inaccuracies were not at all, also, some of the articles examined were not even in the encyclopaedia.
• Misleading headline (the journal misrepresented its own results, so Brit says)
• Brit says, Nature declined making full reports available
• Brit identifies problems: article not from actual Encyclopaedia Britannica and in some cases the full article was not reviewed, or they patched two different articles together
• Reviewers = not required to provide sources to Nature (I definitely see this as a problem)
• One thing that bothers me about this article is that Brit is saying what they think the "lay reader" or "general reader" needs to know. Why is it up to them to decide what I need to know and not know?

[ Nature standing by their story]

• Nature saying they provided Brit most of what they asked for, except for reviewers' reports
• Seems many of the things Brit is against (or says were wrong), Nature says they did deliberately
• ***Interesting, "Britannica has subsequently corrected many of the errors that our reviewers identified.
• Final point, "individual mistakes will have averaged out" (I don't think this is the best, to make me feel the data is accurate; however, I guess it will have to do)

AAK