If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   Good news, Wikipedians: you can add "Wrote for ESPN.com" to your resume   (deadspin.com) divider line 27
    More: Dumbass, ESPN, Wikipedia, WBA, Tom Izzo, Canadian Prime Minister, The Odd Couple, WBC, Damn Yankees  
•       •       •

1412 clicks; posted to Sports » on 11 Jul 2012 at 2:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-11 02:10:49 PM
First farkers
 
2012-07-11 02:12:58 PM
Most of that sh*t is like copying dates or names from Wikipedia. Some of it pretty much is copying the name and date. Really doesn't matter at all.

Then again, nothing in the entertainment industry does.

And half of this article is just quoted from Wikipedia itself. =)
 
2012-07-11 02:14:50 PM
That's so weird that Deadspin is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and trying to embarass ESPN for a guy using Wikipedia as a one sentence resource guide on myriad subjects. You just don't expect this kind of petty assholishness from a reputable website such as Deadspin. This is the biggest non-story in the history of the world, and I am once again reminded why I haven't visisted that POS website in about 2 years.

Seriously, fark Deadspin and the entire Gawker network. When you can make freaking ESPN look sympathetic, you have failed.
 
2012-07-11 02:29:21 PM
The guy lifted some innocuous factoids from Wikipedia. That's sort of the point of Wikipedia. The content is free to use and copy, as far as I know.

Everything he lifted seemed like common knowledge, for lack of a better term. Dates, ages, etc.
 
2012-07-11 02:42:42 PM
Before Wikipedia, people cited Encyclopedia Britannica. Big deal
 
2012-07-11 02:45:02 PM
Guess the three people above me aren't writers and don't understand the stigma that will now be attached to Hoppes going forward. He's now labeled as a plagiarist in the same vein as Woody Paige.

Hoppes could have very well done some research on Wikipedia, but lifting ENTIRE sections and not attributing them to wiki is, I'm sorry, plagiarism. Obviously, it is time prohibitive to properly attribute each section to a specific person, which is why it should be attributed to Wiki. That he lifted the sections and presented them as his own writings, no matter how innocuous, is still pretty bush league for Hoppes.
 
2012-07-11 02:46:15 PM

hbk72777: Before Wikipedia, people cited Encyclopedia Britannica. Big deal


Key word? CITED. Hoppes is not citing anything, as far as I can tell.

The fact is, he knew what he was doing was wrong, which is why he switched up some words, omitted others, and added in some of his own. If he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why the changes?
 
2012-07-11 02:53:48 PM
Wikipedians? Wikipedestrians? Wikipedophiles?
 
2012-07-11 02:56:10 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: The fact is, he knew what he was doing was wrong, which is why he switched up some words, omitted others, and added in some of his own. If he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why the changes?


He copied it word-for-word except when there were changes!

There are some of the longer ones that are semi-damning. But to throw in crap like "Damn Yankees ran for this long when it was originally released" as though there are a whole ton of ways that sentence is going to be typed...let's get real. Deadspin doing what Deadspin does, being a parasite on ESPN and criticizing the most irrelevant things possible and pretending it's an outrage.
 
2012-07-11 03:02:14 PM

IAmRight: The_Six_Fingered_Man: The fact is, he knew what he was doing was wrong, which is why he switched up some words, omitted others, and added in some of his own. If he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, why the changes?

He copied it word-for-word except when there were changes!

There are some of the longer ones that are semi-damning. But to throw in crap like "Damn Yankees ran for this long when it was originally released" as though there are a whole ton of ways that sentence is going to be typed...let's get real. Deadspin doing what Deadspin does, being a parasite on ESPN and criticizing the most irrelevant things possible and pretending it's an outrage.


You do know that it doesn't have to be word for word to be considered plagiarism, right? Simply the fact that it is a "close imitation" is enough.

BTW, I never said he copied word for word. That's your incorrect interpretation of the definition of plagiarism.

BTW #2: I can write that sentence about 5 different ways and not have it considered plagiarism by my peers.
 
2012-07-11 03:15:28 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You do know that it doesn't have to be word for word to be considered plagiarism, right? Simply the fact that it is a "close imitation" is enough.


Yes, I do.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: BTW #2: I can write that sentence about 5 different ways and not have it considered plagiarism by my peers.


No one cares. It's background information that no one outside of Deadspin gives a second thought to. That is how it would be written virtually everywhere in print, as unimaginatively and boringly as possible.
 
2012-07-11 03:21:39 PM

IAmRight: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You do know that it doesn't have to be word for word to be considered plagiarism, right? Simply the fact that it is a "close imitation" is enough.

Yes, I do.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: BTW #2: I can write that sentence about 5 different ways and not have it considered plagiarism by my peers.

No one cares. It's background information that no one outside of Deadspin gives a second thought to. That is how it would be written virtually everywhere in print, as unimaginatively and boringly as possible.


You do realize that these snippets constitute a large portion of his columns, right? He is writing almost nothing original, posting it to ESPN, and collecting a check for it.

I assume you are not a writer, otherwise you would be appalled by this, as are most of my peers.
 
2012-07-11 03:23:04 PM
So when's Deadspin going to post pics of this guy's penis?
 
2012-07-11 03:30:46 PM

downstairs: The guy lifted some innocuous factoids from Wikipedia. That's sort of the point of Wikipedia. The content is free to use and copy, as far as I know.

Everything he lifted seemed like common knowledge, for lack of a better term. Dates, ages, etc.


Wikipedia content is free to use and copy, so long as you adhere to the licencing (CC-BY-SA). Which is to say, Hoppes could copy any text verbatim, so long as he cites where he got it from. The issue here is that he is closely paraphrasing the Wikipedia content, seemingly without attribution. That would be plagiarism.
 
2012-07-11 03:34:27 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: You do realize that these snippets constitute a large portion of his columns, right? He is writing almost nothing original, posting it to ESPN, and collecting a check for it.

I assume you are not a writer, otherwise you would be appalled by this, as are most of my peers.


I have been a writer (I preferred to get paid instead after college). I don't care about it because if you're reading his columns then you've already failed at life, so I really don't care where he gets the content that stupid people read.

It's just like I don't care that animals have to eat the same crap all the time. They're animals and I don't care what they eat. People that read that entertainment news eat crap all the time, why should I care if some of the crap they read was from somewhere else?

/what if he posted it on wikipedia?
//seriously, though, who the f*ck is this guy and why is anyone reading that sh*t?
 
2012-07-11 03:40:17 PM

IAmRight: The_Six_Fingered_Man: You do realize that these snippets constitute a large portion of his columns, right? He is writing almost nothing original, posting it to ESPN, and collecting a check for it.

I assume you are not a writer, otherwise you would be appalled by this, as are most of my peers.

I have been a writer (I preferred to get paid instead after college). I don't care about it because if you're reading his columns then you've already failed at life, so I really don't care where he gets the content that stupid people read.

It's just like I don't care that animals have to eat the same crap all the time. They're animals and I don't care what they eat. People that read that entertainment news eat crap all the time, why should I care if some of the crap they read was from somewhere else?

/what if he posted it on wikipedia?
//seriously, though, who the f*ck is this guy and why is anyone reading that sh*t?


Gotcha. So plagiarism is cool with you, so long as the people you see as beneath you are the only ones reading it. Mind if I start copying your Twitter feed? I'm sure my followers are beneath you. Though probably not as stupid as the 84 people you managed to trick into reading your TL.

What about your ArenaFan articles? Think I'll grab a few of those. Since the only people that would read it are "stupid people," then you don't care, right?

BTW: as an aspiring journalist, you should really care about this. What if this happens to you?

So, in summation, I hope that you don't mind that I'll pull your articles, tweets, and other works and post them on my blog. After all, only stupid people read my blog, but it's a good 2-3000 people a day. So hey, at least you'll finally get some real exposure.

In short, GFY.
 
2012-07-11 03:49:14 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: What about your ArenaFan articles? Think I'll grab a few of those. Since the only people that would read it are "stupid people," then you don't care, right?


No, I really wouldn't. I'd be happy someone wanted to share them. Why would I be upset? I wrote it for fun and because I like to, like Wikipedia editors do. I'm not worried about others making a profit off of it. Hell, it'd be cool if someone did.

It's not like he took something anyone put any particular effort into. He took basic facts and background info and wrote boring sentences.

And no, I'm not an aspiring journalist because journalism is garbage. F*ck "objectivism" bullsh*t.
 
2012-07-11 03:55:00 PM

IAmRight: The_Six_Fingered_Man: What about your ArenaFan articles? Think I'll grab a few of those. Since the only people that would read it are "stupid people," then you don't care, right?

No, I really wouldn't. I'd be happy someone wanted to share them. Why would I be upset? I wrote it for fun and because I like to, like Wikipedia editors do. I'm not worried about others making a profit off of it. Hell, it'd be cool if someone did.

It's not like he took something anyone put any particular effort into. He took basic facts and background info and wrote boring sentences.

And no, I'm not an aspiring journalist because journalism is garbage. F*ck "objectivism" bullsh*t.


Sweet. not that my readers will really be interested in a league that is beneath the one that our team plays in, but I am sure that there are snippets or nuggets of random wisdom in there that might be of some use.

There might even be a quote that I can put on a shirt and sell. No problems, right?
 
2012-07-11 03:57:58 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: There might even be a quote that I can put on a shirt and sell. No problems, right?


No, no problems.

I genuinely don't give a sh*t because I don't do everything I do for money. Kind of like the people who contribute information to Wikipedia.
 
2012-07-11 04:02:52 PM

IAmRight: The_Six_Fingered_Man: There might even be a quote that I can put on a shirt and sell. No problems, right?

No, no problems.

I genuinely don't give a sh*t because I don't do everything I do for money. Kind of like the people who contribute information to Wikipedia.


I gotta ask. What drove you from trying to submit articles to the SPJ Awards to hating journalism as a whole? In less than a year, I might add.
 
2012-07-11 04:09:20 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I gotta ask. What drove you from trying to submit articles to the SPJ Awards to hating journalism as a whole? In less than a year, I might add.


I just wanted the articles submitted so I could get my awards and it would look better on the ol' resume. Also, since I paid to have them submitted and went through the pain in the ass of submitting each set, it would at least be nice to know they were considered.

And I never wanted a journalism job - sh*tty pay, crappy assignments, and no job security.
 
2012-07-11 04:12:21 PM

IAmRight: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I gotta ask. What drove you from trying to submit articles to the SPJ Awards to hating journalism as a whole? In less than a year, I might add.

I just wanted the articles submitted so I could get my awards and it would look better on the ol' resume. Also, since I paid to have them submitted and went through the pain in the ass of submitting each set, it would at least be nice to know they were considered.

And I never wanted a journalism job - sh*tty pay, crappy assignments, and no job security.


I have a question for you, as a PAC-12 guy. Can I email?
 
2012-07-11 04:14:34 PM
I mean, the people who were the EICs of my school paper for the five years before I worked there were averaging about $20K/year as reporters for small papers in jobs they largely seemed to hate and knew they were the first ones who were going to get let go if there were any more economic problems.

That's no way to go through life.

Plus I love being biased as f*ck. I'd be okay with being a blogger but there are plenty of assholes with stupid opinions on the internet and I'm not particularly interested in selling myself. I like selling others.
 
2012-07-11 04:17:02 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I have a question for you, as a PAC-12 guy. Can I email?


Sure, but I have to admit I didn't pay much attention last year, since last football season I was unemployed and getting married, so I got rid of cable and didn't watch much TV (then I found out about digital antennas and wished I'd read about 'em sooner).

Also, if you know about all this other stuff, then you know my email that I bother checking. First name dot last name at gmail.com.
 
2012-07-11 04:18:15 PM

IAmRight: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I have a question for you, as a PAC-12 guy. Can I email?

Sure, but I have to admit I didn't pay much attention last year, since last football season I was unemployed and getting married, so I got rid of cable and didn't watch much TV (then I found out about digital antennas and wished I'd read about 'em sooner).

Also, if you know about all this other stuff, then you know my email that I bother checking. First name dot last name at gmail.com.


Incoming. You'd do better on it than anyone I personally know or care to find.
 
2012-07-11 05:34:15 PM

Resolute: downstairs: The guy lifted some innocuous factoids from Wikipedia. That's sort of the point of Wikipedia. The content is free to use and copy, as far as I know.

Everything he lifted seemed like common knowledge, for lack of a better term. Dates, ages, etc.

Wikipedia content is free to use and copy, so long as you adhere to the licencing (CC-BY-SA). Which is to say, Hoppes could copy any text verbatim, so long as he cites where he got it from. The issue here is that he is closely paraphrasing the Wikipedia content, seemingly without attribution. That would be plagiarism.


Yeah, I guess I can agree with you here. I see it closer to lazy than plagiarism.

When I used to write articles for some newspapers around the country, I would look up easy factoids on Wikipedia. But never copy it word for word.

I never trusted Wikipedia for anything more than simple, non-controversial stuff. Like dates of birth, etc.
 
2012-07-12 12:32:52 AM
Resolute: Wikipedia content is free to use and copy...licensing...Hoppes could copy any text verbatim, so long as he cites where he got it from. The issue here is that he is closely paraphrasing the Wikipedia content, seemingly without attribution.

I agree. It's not so insignificant as to be mountain/molehill, and that fact that it's basically "factoid" stuff doesn't excuse the more-or-less plagiarism.

Either take the writer's writing essentially verbatim (maybe shortened with a few ellipses)--and then attribute it to the source--OR ELSE rewrite it in your own voice. At the very least, it's stupid-lazy and unprofessional. If Wikipedia was a published (i.e., print) source, and the ESPN guy's as well, it'd be interesting as a court case...

/On a somewhat-related note: the internet history of 3-D film is rife with repeated errors. You wanna see someone who's really done the research, and gotten things right? Here it is:

Link
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report