I’m not a fan of Rand Paul, but for Chrissakes, he used the Wikipedia summarization of a movie. That’s it.
I’m pretty sure that things more worthy of lampooning have been going on — I ‘d think Sungenis could get at least a week’s worth of material of Vicki at the TRS-80 trying to log onto a certain government website, for example.
What rubbish. He briefly referenced a movie as part of a speech on a larger issue and needed a plot summary, so he grabbed one form Wikipedia. What kind of “more sophisticated research” was he supposed to do — read the back of the DVD or check out imdb?
Just out of curiosity, have you ever criticized Obama or Biden for lacking “intellectual curiosity” or “the willingness to do more sophisticated research” for the times they’ve stolen speeches?
He quotes verbatim. Doesn’t even bother to have it rewritten or summarized further. Plagiarism is a serious thing.I suspect a lot of people who haven’t spent some time in the world of academia, don’t think plagiarism is always a big deal. This was a stump speech for a Virginia gubernatorial candidate. In Paul’s mind, it wasn’t an important speech, or one that that would be given much attention. He didn’t bother to use his own wording & thought he could get away with using the Wikipedia summary without anyone noticing. Maybe he thought he’d get ridiculed for citing Wikipedia.The thing that really makes him look bad, is that he refused to acknowledge his source when he got caught. He could have just admitted that he looked at the plot summary to “refresh his memory” & should have said as much in his speech. Instead he claimed, “nothing we said was not given attribution to where it came from.” He called it a “disagreement on how you footnote things.”It’s safe to assume Paul has spent enough time in school to know that isn’t true.
SKJAM! Premium Member over 10 years ago
Actually using proper citation might be new for politicians…
Sherlock Watson over 10 years ago
[ rand not needed ]
scpandich over 10 years ago
I’m not a fan of Rand Paul, but for Chrissakes, he used the Wikipedia summarization of a movie. That’s it.
I’m pretty sure that things more worthy of lampooning have been going on — I ‘d think Sungenis could get at least a week’s worth of material of Vicki at the TRS-80 trying to log onto a certain government website, for example.
Varnes over 10 years ago
scpanich, he did it in many, many speeches…
scpandich over 10 years ago
What rubbish. He briefly referenced a movie as part of a speech on a larger issue and needed a plot summary, so he grabbed one form Wikipedia. What kind of “more sophisticated research” was he supposed to do — read the back of the DVD or check out imdb?
Just out of curiosity, have you ever criticized Obama or Biden for lacking “intellectual curiosity” or “the willingness to do more sophisticated research” for the times they’ve stolen speeches?
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 10 years ago
He quotes verbatim. Doesn’t even bother to have it rewritten or summarized further. Plagiarism is a serious thing.I suspect a lot of people who haven’t spent some time in the world of academia, don’t think plagiarism is always a big deal. This was a stump speech for a Virginia gubernatorial candidate. In Paul’s mind, it wasn’t an important speech, or one that that would be given much attention. He didn’t bother to use his own wording & thought he could get away with using the Wikipedia summary without anyone noticing. Maybe he thought he’d get ridiculed for citing Wikipedia.The thing that really makes him look bad, is that he refused to acknowledge his source when he got caught. He could have just admitted that he looked at the plot summary to “refresh his memory” & should have said as much in his speech. Instead he claimed, “nothing we said was not given attribution to where it came from.” He called it a “disagreement on how you footnote things.”It’s safe to assume Paul has spent enough time in school to know that isn’t true.