The Rand Paul plagiarism accusation is absurd

Rugged self-reliance.

Deep thinker. Idea man.

 

No politics, butthead.
I am always watching.

 

How bizarre. He cites to the source material in his end notes while co-opting long passages verbatim. The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute are not covering themselves in glory by standing by their man, I don't think. (And I acknowledge that plenty of people on this thread would say the same about me here, and the line I've drawn that others, notably Bob Cook, dispute.)

 

How can you watch when you're in the karate dojo?

 

If he's lucky, the Times will put out an editorial saying he misspoke, and we can all move on.

 

Put on a gi.
Then take an attack posture.
There will be no moderators to save you.
Karate gave me peace at the center, as my Quaker mother calls it.
Enough peace that I don't let folks like you agitate me.

 

Oooh,, an internet Karate Kid. Shit's getting real now.

 

Funny, coming from the original internet tough guy, author of Starman Justice, and the most likely poster to click the "Report to moderator link".

 

That's not a random question at all. It's entirely relevant.

Normally, encyclopedias are considered common knowledge material. Is that what Wikipedia is? If so, is it necessary to footnote the material?

If it's not, then whom do you credit? Wiki is just a collection of material. Do you find the Wiki note and go to the source material to check it? Do you credit the original author? The person who slapped it up on Wiki?

How would Paul have gone about sourcing the material? To me, if someone says "according to Wiki," that means the person thinks it's true but didn't bother to verify it. I do not consider it viable as a reference at all. (And I'm one of those people, for sure.)

I've had high school kids ask how to credit Wiki and YouTube in their book reports. I tell them it's not a source and that they have to go find where the material came from and cite that.

 

No, shit's getting tiresome now.