Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales often promotes the notion that his site is as accurate as a traditional encyclopedia in fields such as science and technology. Evidently that accuracy now extends to history.
Have a look at Wikipedia's biography of Cato the Elder. (Also known as Marcus Portius Cato or Cato the Censor.)
Then have a look at the Cambridge Encyclopedia's biography of Marcus Porcius Cato. (Also known as Cato the Elder or Cato the Censor.)
Hint: "fruitful field of Roman politics," an interesting phrase if ever I've read one.
Disgraceful.
Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White
- Guest Post: The New York Times War On Drugs - July 31st, 2019
- Bad News From Donald Trump - August 24th, 2016
- Ask Stalin - July 11th, 2016
- Ask Popehat! Joe Manchin Edition - June 16th, 2016
- Stellaris - May 13th, 2016
That's a lot of words to read. Is there a cliff notes version?
Oh, the plagiarism? It happens, I suppose. I thought there was more to it than that.
I wonder what percentage of their articles are plagiarized. It wasn't discussed in the accurate-as-science article.
Comparing these two sites is a break-even emotional experience for me. On the one hand, the plagiarism makes me sigh and shake my head in disgust. On the other hand, the fact that the author(s) went to the effort to pass-off legitimate source citations and references makes me chuckle. At least they acknowledge, "incorporat[ing] text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." Maybe Britannica plagiarized from the Cambridge Encyclopedia, too? I kid, I kid.