What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
50 Comments
- kimastergeorge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@thenik
Bull. It is entirely copywritten. It's released under the FDL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
It's not public domain. There's a difference between "free" and "public domain". - Lumbeekid06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2not 2 bad, but what if someone changes it for the worst?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If only we could fix inaccurate Digg headlines as easily as we can fix inaccurate Wikipedia articles.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"not 2 bad, but what if someone changes it for the worst?"
Someone else in the community will likely change it for the better - mdshoreboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well it only works when you are actually contributing something to wikipedia... how many essays need to be written on katrina in the next couple of months before something else comes up?
- blixel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I digg it. I think it's actually kind of cool. Who wouldn't want their paper to be checked by hundreds of people before they turned it in? As long as you do the bulk of the work, and take the time to understand why your original information was wrong, I don't have a problem with it. It's like letting your mom and dad check your 3rd grade math homework before you turn in it.
- ketsugi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@thenik: Doesn't matter; you think your teachers are going to care whether you're copying copyrighted work or public domain work? It's still plagiarism.
This article is cool but has NOTHING to do with putting term papers on Wikipedia. - bunni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This was a magzine teaming up with Wikipedia and the wiki community to write an article about Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with term papers, hacking, social engineering, or 'tricks'. Everything was disclosed.
- TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Plagirism is only for copywritten work, Wikipedia isn't copywritten, you may copy and paste to your hearts content.
- mcmorrowk, on 05/06/2009, -0/+0>not 2 bad, but what if someone changes it for the worst?
well maybe if there was a way to select which changes you want to keep. and then there could be some sort of reputation system for the people whose edits get used in the final paper.
maybe? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That exsists in all situations for Wikipedia articles.
- manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Misleading article (I know if I saw a frickin term paper on Wikipedia, I wouldn't touch it), but it is a good proof of concept - Wikipedia is great simply because of the volume and accuracy of information almost guaranteed by the community and its standards.
And if somebody changes any of the articles to make them worse or inaccurate, there are a bunch of people waiting in the wings to fix it. - Doomhammer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting story, Dugg.
Wikipedia is awesome. - KillaKev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bad name for the article, but it's an interesting article none the less.
- vemon388, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I need to give credit to Lifehacker for the title and description.
Sorry Lifehacker. - rjespo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I digg because the story's cool, but I disagree with what it suggests
- fighto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://exalteddesign.com/papers
Set up the temp page really quick. Anyone want to help? - xptical, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ethan
I didn't read the article, but I really don't understand what the problem is. I had a prof claim I was cheating because a copy of my paper turned up on the web. He looked like a jackass when he found out that the paper was, in fact, on MY website. I do that with all my papers.
If I write a paper and have a friend proofread it, have I cheated?
If I have 10 friends proofread it, have I cheated?
How about 10,000 friends?
If the original work is mine, I think that incorporating changes does not constitute cheating. If I write a paper, it's mine to do with as I please. If I want to post it to my domain, that's my choice. He chose to post it to WikiPedia. - bobetr, on 11/27/2008, -0/+0the problem with this are those plagarism checkers.
- Capand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0see that's cool and that's almost a good idea if it will be deleted, the problem is, what if someone else in your very large college class does the same thing?
lol just a thought - anonice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Plagirism is only for copywritten work, Wikipedia isn't copywritten, you may copy and paste to your hearts content."
---
guh? I think you're thinking of copyright violation, not plagiarism... Any uncited direct quotations from any work that's not yours is plagiarism, whether it's wikipedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, or a paper from a kid who took the class last year. - vemon388, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My next assignment will definitely be on wikipedia. =)
- mikeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Misleading headline on this digg.
I've never thought of this before while writing my essays, but why not go to wiki for my resources? Instead of spending hours using google, I can just go to wiki for some of my information needs. It seems so common sense but I wonder how many people at my school have also thought of using wiki as a resource tool in their essays. - noahhendrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, were is our "edit" for the news posted on here. Not even the person who submitted it can change that. Probably has something to do, with them generating static pages, instead of doing a dB query each time a page is loaded. Not sure, but defiantly something they need to get implemented. Also how about edit comments.
- webXL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, this is a cool way to catch mistakes.
Why can't congress write laws this way? - ajcannon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I used wikipedia tonight to help gather information for an english paper that is due tomorrow. I've never used it before, but it is very, very useful and I will definately be using it again.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OK, the article is not about 'letting Wikipedia write your term paper for you," but the suggestion inherent in the headline is quite repugnant.
- Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Term paper, maybe. Thesis? Probably not... dammit.
- Brandonyoung, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Instead of Wikipedia writing your paper, how about having a computer do it for you? I think this page was featured on digg previously, or maybe it was slashdot... hard to remember where I found it.
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ - Thebigman1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Now Wiki can set up a Proof read section where you pay a small amount to put your paper up and let people proof it etc. lol
- CyberWindCloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Now the news is out...I don't think people in the WIKI wouldn't work deligently on fixing factual error.......this is a delimma...they didn't get paid to fixing the article....but people now can post their research papers & term papers on the website....
- mojaam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0One of the great benefits of this whole open source area, faster editing and all that... I love the Wiki, it's becoming the source to go to for reference.
- fighto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that is a problem. will try and think of a sollution. in the mean time you are welcomed to try and come up with one. i'm pretty skilled with php and can probably implement your idea.
- parker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0very interesting.
there's a difference between having a friend proof read a paper and having them rewrite it. as cool as this sounds it is still plagiarism as far as universities should be concerned even if it isn't illegal. - shawnb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"This article is cool but has NOTHING to do with putting term papers on Wikipedia."
agreed - GaryKing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder if there really was a wiki where you could submit essays, actually? Also, you cannot submit one to Wikipedia as of now, anyways. How would you do it? The admins would probably delete it in a jiffy.
- Trjn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"@ethan
I didn't read the article, but I really don't understand what the problem is. I had a prof claim I was cheating because a copy of my paper turned up on the web. He looked like a jackass when he found out that the paper was, in fact, on MY website. I do that with all my papers.
If I write a paper and have a friend proofread it, have I cheated?
If I have 10 friends proofread it, have I cheated?
How about 10,000 friends?
If the original work is mine, I think that incorporating changes does not constitute cheating. If I write a paper, it's mine to do with as I please. If I want to post it to my domain, that's my choice. He chose to post it to WikiPedia."
First of all, read the article, why comment at all if you don't even read what you are commenting on, thats like me talking about the complexities of some random African tribe's marriage rituals. Sure people might think I know *****, but there is no point because its complete bull.
Secondly, proof reading and editing are two different things, proof reading is making suggestions about mistakes, editing is changing the mistakes. If I wrote "go get raped by a donkey" and then after 100000000000 edits (mebbe a few more) it turned into a thesis on reproductive organs of donkeys, well could I really claim original work?
Hell no. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Holy!
- wormeyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You couldn't use wikipedia to write your own term papers because it's not your IP.
- netcrusher88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Problems (college-centric, admittedly):
Someone else writes it: copyright violation, legal action.
Solution: copyleft
Copylefted, but not cited: plagiarism, probably fail the paper, maybe fail the course, maybe disciplinary action.
Solution: cited
Entire paper copied and cited: cheating, probably at least fail the paper.
Solution: Write your *own* term paper. - NarfTrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It aint gonna work now that it's been dugg. People will do the opposite and mangle it to death.
- Ethan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1here's the deal. I'm a university professor, and, like most of my colleagues, I use a series of plagiarism checkers (some use remarkably complex algorithms to analyze the language of the paper, and compare it to previously turned in works, while some, like Turnitin.com, search thousands of on line sources...including wikepedia). I make it my mission to find, catch, and fail cheaters and plagiarists. If its a game they want to play, I'll damn well play it with them - and most of the time I win. So, if there are any students out there thinking that this would be a good idea, don't try it...who knows, maybe you'll end up taking a class from me in the future, try this, and throw your university career out the window...Hell, maybe you are even taking a class from me right now.
- zephyrsyndicate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Brilliant!
- foohookups311, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If you think about it this is actually a great example of social engineering. The writer ultimatly got someone else to do his work and socially hacked his way into getting a much better paper. I don't agree with the premise of his motives but I have to give him an A+ for the social engineering.
- febryle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0RTFA.
- loeakaodas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Don't people think of PLAGIRISM simple putting a few keywords in to google will turn up that article, unless you teacher/proffesor is a dunce
- blhack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0hrm, this makes me think that there should be a wiki-papers section prehaps?
- billpoly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This post is interesting, but not for reasons in the headline or the article. It brings up an interesting point about dupes.
Now, I'm not looking to start a flame war or anything here - just bring up what I think is an interesting point. The bottom feeders may come crawling out of their little holes to start flaming my comment, in which case they can pucker up and kiss my hairy white ass. Now that we have that out of the way...
Check out this posting, submitted to Digg 14 hours 25 minutes ago as of the time of this comment:
http://digg.com/technology/Esquire_magazine_uses_Wikipedia_to_write_article_about_Wikipedia
Pay special attention to the comments, three of which (mine excluded) point to this post as being a dupe.
Now note that the posting you are currently reading, which has been dugg to the home page and is quite popular, links to the exact same article yet was posted 5 hours 32 minutes ago. By my clock, this posting was submitted after the so called "dupe". So, will the real dupe please stand up?
So which is the dupe? The original story, being commented as a dupe with one commentor encouraging others to report it, or this one, submitted many hours after the first? This posting has a more sensationalist title and body which completely misrepresents the actual content of the article, but clearly caught more Diggers' eyes and is more popular. As I said in my comment on the 14 hr 25 min ago posting, I give that one +1 digg and this one nothing, because if we're going to play by the rules of the Dupe Nazis then this one is the dupe.
Then again, this article presents an interesting premise - even if it doesn't exactly represent the intent of the linked article. It's entertaining, it caught my eye, and convinced me to click on the linked story. What the hell... +1 digg here too.
I guess what I'm saying is this... Both articles are good. The other one, by the law of the land (and the clock) is the original and this one is the dupe. But they both served their purpose. So, maybe the Dupe Nazis should just lighten up a bit. I'll bet you 8 hours and 53 minutes that many of the standard clan of Dupe Nazis dugg this story, completely missing that it was a dupe. So, people... lighten up!!!!
Or maybe the Dupe Nazis that commented on the other posting just need to learn how to tell time... ;)
I leave you with that. - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1
This is rediculous...write it yourself! Damn cheaters. - AlbetPacino, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Celebrity digger #1 tells the story of being # 1
http://digg.com/technology/Celebrity_Digger_tells_the_story_of_being_1
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is