The people who write Wikipedia articles may be largely anonymous, but they are actually engaged in “work.” They write things down and then publish them. This requires energy. So, when you take their work and use it without attribution, you are cheating them. You are not giving them credit for the work they have done and you are claiming their effort as your own. Admittedly, this kind of sin isn’t as egregious as when you take money out of someone’s pocket but it is still a dishonest and dishonorable thing to do. So, Rand Paul should stop lifting Wikipedia articles and reciting them without attribution in his speeches. He should admit that he made a mistake, more than once, and he should commit to writing his own plot summaries of movies from now on. His defense of himself is pathetic.
“This is really about information and attacks coming from haters,” Paul said in an interview with Fusion on Wednesday. “The person who is leading this attack has been spreading hate on me for about three years now, and I don’t intend for it to go away…
…“It is a disagreement on how you footnote things … but if we were to present any of these speeches for publication we would have footnotes in them. But a lot of times [in] a speech people don’t take the time to footnote things,” he said.
Paul said the plot line from the movie belongs to the screenwriter and he gave him credit in his speech.
“I didn’t claim that I created the movie ‘Gattaca.’ That is what is so absurd about this. The plotline to ‘Gattaca’ belongs to one person, the guy, the screenwriter, and I gave him credit for that.”
I don’t know about you, but if I like a movie enough to cite it in a speech, then I am fully capable of describing the plot line in my own words. Rand Paul isn’t a 9th-Grader who has to write a report about a book he hasn’t read. He’s a sitting United States senator. He should learn to act like one.
“He’s a sitting United States senator. He should learn to act like one.”
That is one thing that this bozo is never going to do.
Of course, given the Repubs’ rapid dilution and degradation of the image of a US senator, soon not too many people will have much of an idea what that image was supposed to be.
Also note the use of “attacks” and “haters” to describe (irrefutable) factual criticisms. Very Hitlerian.
Is that like this?
This application of things/substances to the body must be a Republican thing.
I wonder if it wasn’t a staffer who, preparing this and Senator Paul’s other idiotic movie parables, decided to save time by cutting and pasting Wikipedia entries into his boss’s texts. Which would be pretty fucking hilarious.
“attacks coming from haters”
What is he? Fifteen. Seriously, my students talk like that and I try very hard to not sound like a teenager.
When I saw the interview I could tell Paul wasn’t speaking to the interviewer, but to his fans and supporters, most of whom likely don’t understand Plagiarism (or do it themselves in similar fashion), and ‘eat up’ his incoherent rant against Maddow.
Somehow I doubt this little spat is going to damage him much among his core supporters in KY. The rest of the Country, well….you either love him or think he’s a second-class grifter (Ted Cruz being first-class)…I think he’s done a reasonably good job of hardening his support against Fact/Reality–the Corporate Media (outside Fox) is already ignored..
Paul is so conservative he’s CHEAP. Remember the thingy where he did not like paying anyone to cert that he was a board certified eye surgeon so he started his own board cert thingy and certified himself. Here he is so CHEAP he is unable to pay a professional speech writer to assist with his speeches.
It’s really simple. Instead of adding footnotes, he should just easily say, “According to an article from Wikipedia…” and then he can use as much direct quotations as he wants.
The downside, is that as soon as you say, “According to Wikipedia” you lose all credibility.
Rand Paul needs to have a talk with Joe Biden about the the consequences of over-enthusiastic quoting of others’ material without attribution. Rand Paul might think he’s getting off lucky just with public criticism, especially as Paul used substantially more quoted material.
He might want to fire one or more of his speech writers for a first-rate unprofessional mistake.
IOKIYAR
Simply, from this point forward, Ayn Rand Paul, should always be referred to as a MOOCHER and a TAKER.
Sen. Dimwit seems to think plagiarism is simply leaving out a footnote. No, it’s taking something someone else created, filing off the serial number, and passing it off as your own.
Some people might go so far as to call it “mooching” or might even call the perpetrator a (gasp!) taker. You’re a taker, Rand. A taker.
More disturbing is that he uses snippets of movie plots to make his political points. Snippets as written up by someone that may or may not have seen the movie, and lifted by a Rand-aide that may or not have seen the movie, and read my Rand who likely didn’t see the movie.
Sorta like St Ronnie used to do,
The difference was St Ronnie acted in some of the movies he confused for reality, while living in the white house.
You’re too kind. St. Ronnie forgot that they were movies and talked about his WWII battlefield experiences.
Rand may have a secret life as a movie action hero but so far isn’t gaga enough to mistake it for reality.