Waldo Jaquith at the Virginia Quarterly Review found something very interesting during his review of Chris Anderson's new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price: several chunks of the text were verbatim excerpts from Wikipedia entries that were uncredited in Anderson's book. On the VQR blog, Jaquith points out a half-dozen or so instances of such segments in the book, set to be released in July, after what he said was just a "cursory examination" of the text.
Another blogger, Edward Champion, also found some language--also unattributed--that was nearly identical to language used in some non-Wikipedia sources, including other books, essays, and blogs. More on that here.
Anderson has acknowledged that he screwed up with the Wikipedia and (sort of) apologizes, explaining that the lack of proper citation was due to a last minute decision to pull the footnotes. It's an explanation that someare* seem to be accepting--including Jaquith, who says "you'd have to be mentally ill to do this on purpose"--and some are more skeptical about, such as Plagiarism Today's Jonathan Bailey, who writes that Anderson's effort "is, at best, extremely sloppy research" to the point that it "severely undermines the message of his book."
But whether it was sloppy research, laziness, poor decision-making by the publisher, or flat out intentional plagiarism, the book is certain to make waves in discussions about the future of the Internet and the delivery of online content.
Of course the irony of an author writing about pricing mechanisms and the "free" availability of copyrighted content being accused of plagiarizing--from the Wikipedia entry on "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch," no less--hasn't been lost on bloggers and commenters. And it brings to mind another adage that can be applied to the Internet, one that's probably weighing heavily on Anderson's and his publisher's minds right now: not all press is good. Important lesson learned.
*UPDATE: Jaquith writes below in the comments to clarify the meaning behind his statement above that "you'd have to be mentally ill to do this on purpose."
He writes:
Another blogger, Edward Champion, also found some language--also unattributed--that was nearly identical to language used in some non-Wikipedia sources, including other books, essays, and blogs. More on that here.
Anderson has acknowledged that he screwed up with the Wikipedia and (sort of) apologizes, explaining that the lack of proper citation was due to a last minute decision to pull the footnotes. It's an explanation that some
But whether it was sloppy research, laziness, poor decision-making by the publisher, or flat out intentional plagiarism, the book is certain to make waves in discussions about the future of the Internet and the delivery of online content.
Of course the irony of an author writing about pricing mechanisms and the "free" availability of copyrighted content being accused of plagiarizing--from the Wikipedia entry on "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch," no less--hasn't been lost on bloggers and commenters. And it brings to mind another adage that can be applied to the Internet, one that's probably weighing heavily on Anderson's and his publisher's minds right now: not all press is good. Important lesson learned.
*UPDATE: Jaquith writes below in the comments to clarify the meaning behind his statement above that "you'd have to be mentally ill to do this on purpose."
He writes:
Actually, I'm neither accepting nor rejecting that explanation, because it's not my position to do so. What I was trying to establish with that comment is that I cannot imagine that Anderson would do such a thing intentionally, as I find it difficult to believe that any author of a major-market book (especially one that explicitly cites, in places, several of the plagiarized works) would do such a thing intentionally--the odds of getting caught are simply too high.
It's an explanation that some are accepting--including Jaquith, who says "you'd have to be mentally ill to do this on purpose"
Actually, I'm neither accepting nor rejecting that explanation, because it's not my position to do so. What I was trying to establish with that comment is that I cannot imagine that Anderson would do such a thing intentionally, as I find it difficult to believe that any author of a major-market book (especially one that explicitly cites, in places, several of the plagiarized works) would do such a thing intentionally—the odds of getting caught are simply too high.