A NYT Lede That Duplicates Wikipedia

Now, I suppose that's second-hand information. So:

Now, I suppose you could sub the words "Calipari said he called ..." So:

Again, it seems pretty well covered to me.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

 

And none of this deals with plagiarizing a lede. And no, this lede would not be acceptable if it said "according to Wikipedia."

 

Why not?

 

It's still plagiarism.

 

This always seems like such a silly exercise to me - having to switch around the words when merely laying out facts, facts that you've cited a source for, just to avoid plagiarizing.

What a waste of time. Skeet shooting is great training for skeet shooting.

 

No, it isn't. "According to Wikipedia" makes it clear you're not trying to pass it off as your own.

It would still be lazy and shitty journalism. But it wouldn't be plagiarism.

 

If it's "according to Wikipedia," and then the portion is quoted, it's not plagiarism. If it's "according to Wikipedia" and then the portion is not in quotes, but still verbatim and not paraphrased, I think that's still basically plagiarism.

 

It wasn't verbatim.

 

Was pretty damn close. Used the same phrasing.

 

It is factual background. Assuming the words, "According to Wikipedia," how much creativity should she have then put into trying to shuffle the words around just enough in order to satiate the Journalism Police?

 

The same order was probably her biggest sin. But, there are only so many ways to phrase the same facts. Especially when they are coming from a faceless, nameless amalgam of online "contributors."

It was different enough that a simple attribution would've covered it. From being plagiarism, I mean - it's shitty journalism no matter what.