Wired Editor Chris Anderson Admits Plagiarizing Wikipedia In New Book Free

NEW YORK — The author of a new book about the wisdom of free products on the Web has acknowledged taking some liberties in his own work.

Chris Anderson, known for the influential business book "The Long Tail," said he was mistaken for using passages _ without attribution _ that closely resembled material from Wikipedia and other sources included in his latest release, "Free: The Future of a Radical Price."

"This is entirely my own screwup, and will be corrected," Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine, wrote on his blog Wednesday.

Anderson's book, coming out next month from Hyperion, includes information about the phrase "there's no such thing as a free lunch," about the meaning of a learning curve and about other subjects for which he depended on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia of user-contributed articles. The similarities were first reported by the Virginia Quarterly Review.

Hyperion issued a statement Wednesday: "We are completely satisfied with Chris Anderson's response. It was an unfortunate mistake, and we are working with the author to correct these errors both in the electronic edition before it posts, and in all future editions of the book."

The book has first printing of 80,000 copies, which already have been shipped.

The controversy already has been noted on Anderson's Wikipedia page.

Anderson explained on his blog that he had intended to include the URLs for the Wikipedia material, but that his publisher "was uncomfortable with the changing nature of Wikipedia," and asked that Anderson note the date he viewed the page, a system the author found "clumsy and archaic."

In the "rush" to finish the text, credit to Wikipedia was omitted. The passages in question "were mostly on the margins of the book's focus, mostly on historical asides," Anderson said, "but that's no excuse."

Anderson, asked by The Associated Press why he had used Wikipedia, which has often been questioned for its reliability, Anderson said that "on many subjects Wikipedia is one of the best, and best researched, sources, but you have to use other sources to confirm that.

"In the case of the `free lunch' example, which I have read a lot about, I thought the Wikipedia entry was excellent and perhaps the best summary out there."

Comments

[Roseberry]

The reason many of us refuse to give Wikipedia the cred that others do comes down to responsibility. Save the articles written by individuals or companies themselves, about themselves, there is rarely a single originator who one can rely on to back up the facts in the articles -- nobody to pin them to. Since the articles are subject to constant change, again, that makes them nebulous.
You get "sources" and "references" yes, and the articles are great places to start for research.
On top of all this is the heinous writing you find in some of the articles. Absolutely awful...
I think the folk who look up to Wikipedia have some very stupid stars in their eyes -- they are struck by the idealistic notion of everybody sharing info, everybody adding, blah, blah. Which is fine -- it's just not reliable.

[KingBatguano]

WIRED went down the drain years ago . When it first came out it was great . They completely sold out.. Now it's just good for wrapping trash .

[skeller]

I wouldn't bother to buy the book of someone who doesn't understand the reason for the conventions governing citation of web pages.

[havegonedc]

Oh please!

If it looks like a pr stunt,
If it smells like a pr stunt...

It IS a pr stunt.

[Shannon Bryony]

Since when is plagiarism "a mistake"? Using other works in all or part as if your own is always a calculated action, an ethical violation. It cannot be done by accident; it is always intentional and it is always wrong. What makes this offense so grossly offensive is that Wikipedia, for all its virtues, is an ordinary-people compilation of information, often with its contents unsourced/­uncredited­, often true but sometimes just plain wrong. As a retired writer/editor, I take what I read in it with a grain of salt. Anyone can add, change or delete anything in it. History can be rewritten to be wrong, all history, from world events to the facts of the lives of real people. I always look for other sources. Now imagine a writer plagiarizing Wikipedia. And that the plagiarism is erroneous information. The problem mushrooms.

In this case, Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired magazine and "known for the influential business book 'The Long Tail,' " can have no excuse. Nor can he excuse what he did as a "screw-up." His publisher, Hyperion, echoes the "mistake" explanation and calls itself satisfied with Anderson's promise to correct the problem. They have each sullied themselves ethically, and, among professionals, if not the general reading public, this is an offense not easily forgiven.

Side note to Seppoyank: You are "a professional writer. It is [your] full-time, paid job." Really? In what dictionary can I find the word "plagiary?"

[frantaylor]

Say what you want about wikipedia but the REAL research shows that it is more accurate than any other information source.

I use it heavily for technical information and it is always dead-on for me.

[Cosmic-Zantor]

Where did you read that research? Wikipedia?

[griffintheuk]

Noone said it was a mistake to lift the content.
He said it was a mistake to omit the attribution.

[seppoyank]

"plagiary." Webster's New World College Dictionary.

"plagiary." Oxford English Dictionary.

Good enough dictionaries for you, gumdrop?

You might also want to check out http://www.plagiary.org/. They apparently use the same weirdo dictionaries.

I am a professional writer and not the glamorous kind. I write the back cover/inside flaps of books. I write page after page of copy for websites. I write press releases for anyone and anything on the planet. The pay is rubbish.

I do agree with your statements before you decided you needed to throw some anger my way. Funny that there is nothing I can say that will get a more hostile response on the web than the words "I am a professional writer." I'm not asking for anyone's permission. It is my job. It is just the same as someone saying, "I am a teacher" or "I am a radiologist." It isn't up for debate. It is a fact. You searching for flaws in my writing doesn't change the fact that it is how I pay my rent.

I always think that maybe it has something to do with jealousy. I get that. Dropping off the career track, getting my MA in what I love and joining the ranks of the self-employed is the best thing I ever did. My friends may wear Jimmy Choos while I wear Target, but I get to write all day. Don’t hate me for being happy.

[bryony01]

Very defensive for someone doing so well. No anger aimed at you and I wasn't "searching for flaws"; I just ran into this word I'd never heard of or read anywhere. So, like any editor -- it's a knee-jerk reflex, once an editor always an editor -- I checked my usual dictionaries and didn't find it, not even in the current Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, U.S. or British editions. But what the hey, huh? You are happy writing what you want, so I am happy for you, even though I wouldn't write the things you do. But, then, I don't have to, do I?

[OhTheHumanities]

All the superior comments about Wikipedia are amusingly pathetic. Aren't you a scholarly bunch today. I suppose you all miss the days of confidently parroting "authoritative" sources. No, instead, you actually have to think about what you're seeing when you look at Wikipedia, and whether it's true or not. By the way, they actually do pretty good with sourcing their own material, or letting you know when it is not sufficiently sourced - which is more than I can say for a lot of professional media.

[JohnSawyer]

I agree that the popular insinuations about Wikipedia are usually misplaced. There are some exceptions, but not enough to dismiss the whole project. Besides, the veracity of all media has always had to be thought about when viewed--for example, network news, and news in various major newspapers, has often been warped by influences from government, CIA, opinionated owners, etc.

[bryony01]

All I said was that I always look elsewhere for information verifying Wikipedia's, unless it's something I know to be true. It's sort of like Reuters news service. You see a hot story there, you make sure you find it in another source, too, because Reuters, while often the first with breaking news, is often wrong or jumps the gun, like the famous "Dewey Wins" headline when Truman was elected president. By the way, I'm not blaming Reuters for that. It may have been Reuters; I'm too young to know.

[PiracyPayback]

Plagiarize by someone who really should have known better. The reality is that Wikipedia is likely to be one of the most plagiarize­d/pirated/­unattribut­ed sites ever …

[LiberalForever]

Hacking Wiki? Naw. That's a crime right up there with jaywalking.

[AZterritory]

Plagiarizing Wikipedia is sort of like stealing Boone's Farm when there's much finer vintages available.

[larry278]

Hey, when you're an alkie or a wine head, need a drink to stop shaking, Thunderbird will do fine. It's cheap, it's alcohol.
If you are writing a book, have writers block, need facts, there is Wikipedia.
Chris Anderson should drop the book idea, pronto. If at 1st you don't suceed, drop the idea; the idea was lousy in the 1st place.

[frantaylor]

Please name another information source that is more accurate than wikipedia.

Independent research shows that wikipedia is more accurate than any of the printed encyclopedias.

[bccmeteorites]

Our experience has been solely in the planetary science section of WIKIPEDIA. I think for a while it was plagued by professional vandals (tenured rankists from colleges and universities). In one case a scientist removed our contribution and when confronted with the evidence of his vandalism "profusely apologized saying it was all a mistake and he did not know what he was doing".

This same scientist has been intentionally misidentifying meteorites, telling racial minority collectors such things as "meteorites don't contain quartz", which is a complete lie. They contain polymorphs of quartz, that's what makes a stony meteorite a stone. This link from WIKIPEDIA with regards to quartz exposes his untruths in manipulating the scientific record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock (see quartz entry in highland lithologies)

At this link are many known individuals manipulating or contributing directly-indirectly to manipulation of the scientific record funded by NASA. He is from Washington University in St Louis at this link.

http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html

[euripedes923]

So cite your source already.

[gypsy508]

You've got to be kidding. I know several people who post to Wikipedia for PR purposes.

[bryony01]

"Independent research shows that wikipedia is more accurate than any of the printed encyclopedias."

What "independent research" is that? Just asking.

[deckard70]

"His publisher asked that Anderson note the date he viewed the page, a system the author found 'clumsy and archaic.'"

I agree. The formatting of urls in reference sections were conceived hastily, as the internet was just coming into being. The formatting has not been substantially improved upon since. It needs to be.

References to book are referring to locations that are fixed in place. Even when newer editions are retypeset for new editions, the page numbers come close to what they were originally. So there's a good chance one can track down a reference to a book successfully.

But the internet changes rapidly. A website may keep the same root url forever, but pages change. One year a site's pages may be ".html". The next year, they may be a "php" string, etc.

By the time a book is published, many urls are obsolete. And there's no point in stating "accessed June 2009" unless time machines are invented.

For readers who undertake the dubious task of tracking down an online reference, the formatting of online references needs to be reconceived. Enough info must be provided to find the article again, regardless of where it may move to.

That said, wikipedia's pages tend to stick around, so there's no excuse not to have included references in some fashion, even if the current form is indeed "clumsy and archaic".

Sounds like they couldn't agree on a form. Maybe this will force them to invent a good one.

[ohrly]

Citing the URL and stating "last accessed on (insert date here)" at least informs the reader that you obtained the information from another source and gives some credit to that source.

Even if the source is no longer available, at least it acknowledges that the information was not independently obtained.

[GD9000]

The comment about access dates and time machines overlooks a critical point: Providing the access date gives the reader a way to assess the currency of the material. This is doubly important with dynamic sources such as wikis.

[BluebirdofUnhappiness]

Two wrongs (plagarizing and using Wiki as an authoritative source) don;t make it right.
Also free: Yes you do get what you pay for (and Wiki being free....)
Ah the magic of the internets, where everyone is an expert.

[apoyo]

Gee, maybe I should do the same with my book.

Freebies.

And I agree, he probably thought wiki would be updated before anybody caught on.

[klm68]

So how do I get my students to understand that this is wrong? They see people who are "real" authors, people who get paid for "writing", doing this stuff and getting away with it. Oops, I was in a hurry, I didn't mean to, I forgot to include the reference, I pasted it from a friend's email. Deceitful, inept, and irresponsible. I don't accept these excuses from my students, but newspapers, magazines, and book publishers do, and these people collect their salaries and royalties just the same.

The standard way of citing a web source includes citing the date on which you accessed it. A real "writer" should know that.

[whitewaterwillie]

Yep. It seems to be happening at all levels. I caught a grad student who is an A student lift several paragraphs directly from Wikipedia. There goes her 4.0 GPA.

[Trickywoo]

Exactly. How hard is it to type "(accessed 10 Jan 2009)" in a reference? That's not "clumsy and archaic." That's just a normal standard of scholarship. How hard is it to copy the url and paste it into the reference entry? It's so easy to give credit where it's due, and this guy is an editor-in-chief. I think the most you can do it hold him up as an example to your students to show them how embarrassingly ignorant you look when you plagiarize, especially as it's so simple NOT to.

[Hehlol]

Citing the date that this website was 'accurate' kind of indicates inherently the flaws within Wikipedia.

Citing the date is clumsy and archaic, and if you can't see why that is, they you probably are too.

[mltmama]

This is one reason I don't read other books on the same topics as mine.

[MsIrisMG]

EVERYBODY plagiarizes Wikipedia. Happens on Huffington Post all the time. Posters always post links to it as if it were gospel, and half the time, it's wrong.

[ChuckDarwin]

Posting a link to Wiki is not plagiarization.

[bryony01]

"....plagi­arization.­"

Plagiarism?

[laddieluv]

You obviously don't understand what "plagiarize" means, "MsIris"!

It means to "steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one's own without crediting the source." (Merriam)

It does NOT mean posting a link to another page or site on a web page!!!

And it certainly has NOTHING to do with one's perception or opinion of the material being "gospel"! That's a whole different issue!!

[Shannon Bryony]

"It does NOT mean posting a link to another page or site on a web page!!!"

Read carefully. She didn't say it did.

[Hehlol]

Half the time it's wrong? Stats? Where did you find that? Evidence? Link?

Oh yea, no stats? Baseless claims?! Sounds like your post has all the flaws you criticize Wikipedia for. You needn't look up the definition of irony and hypocrisy, both are too abundant in your post.