http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901453.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia
Trackback
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901453.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia
Wiki does it.
Wiki is dis-info mostly.
Of course it is. Plagiarism is taking anyone else’s work and using it as your own. The fact that everything on Wikipedia is copylefted or used under fair use doesn’t change that.
i think so!
i’m no Wikipedia expert, but i use Wikipedia all the time, and i think that it would be plagiarism since u didn’t cite it…
sorry i know i’m not a good explainer…
=]
Yes. By definition, representing the work of others as your own is plagiarism.
On the other hand, you get into a gray area if you use your own contribution to Wikipedia without citation. Short segments may fall under fair use, but your final submission is not original.
Plagiarism is, according to Dictionary.com, “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”
I’m pretty sure this applies to everything, even from Wikipedia. If it’s not your own words, it’s plagarism, unless, of course you cite your source and/or quote it.
Plagiarism is plagiarism. I don’t see why people still don’t cite wiki articles — they do it for you! … unless they copied the whole article word for word.