Oops!

by hilzoy

I know that speeches are written by staffers, and that a candidate can't possibly run such an unbelievably tight operation that none of them ever does anything stupid. That said, I do think it's funny that part of McCain's speech on the crisis in Georgia seems to have been taken from Wikipedia.

Comments

[Ugh]

Hey! Let's not let a little things like a complete lack of knowledge of the culture, history, and current events in the region keep us from getting our war on with the Russkies. Look how well Iraq has worked out? How could you not double down on that sort of success? And its not like the Air Force has anything better to do right now. I say: bomb 'em.

[KCinDC]

I've got the "South Ossetia" and "Ossetia" Wikipedia articles on my watchlist since adding a bit to the discussion pages about pronunciation, and I'm actually surprised at how little edit warring has been going on. I mean, there's been a fair amount, but I'd've expected more, considering what's been happening with blog comment threads.

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

Why? Didn't Conservapedia have enough content?

How would the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus handle this situation?

[washerdreyer]

Since plagiarism doesn't violate the norms of political speeches this seems like a particularly poor scandal of the day. Unless the issue is supposed to be sourcing from wikipedia, but obviously McCain uses much less reliable sources than wikipedia all the time.

[KCinDC]

What will Stephen Colbert say?

[KCinDC]

Washerdreyer, the point isn't the plagiarism but the indication of how superficial the knowledge is. But I agree it's a silly "scandal" to devote time to.

[Incertus]

McCain's just lucky he's not a student in the UVa summer at sea program.

[GK]

Somebody on his staff was aware of this Internet tradition.

[Gromit]

Maybe this is really just a clever way for the McCain campaign to dispel concerns about his technological illiteracy.

[John]

It may be a "silly" scandal, but could you imagine what would be said about this if Obama had given a speech on the Georgian/Russian conflict, in which took parts of from a wikipedia article? I can see the headline/attacks... "Obama too inexperienced to deal with foreign policy." "Obama's foreign policy comes from wikipedia."

I mean seriously???

This is supposed to be John McCain's strength, and yet he's copying whole phrases from wikipedia?? Yet it's only "silly" because we all KNOW John McCain is a foreign policy expert... of course....

[anonymous 37]

How do you know that someone on McCain's staff didn't write the Wikipedia entry to begin with? Huh? Answer me that, smart guy.

[anonymous 37]

And how do you know that it wasn't John McCain himself? Huh?

[Jeff]

And how do you know that it wasn't John McCain himself?

Assuming this wasn't satire...

a) Because we've heard McCain speak; b) because McCain has admitted he doesn't know how to get arounf on the Teh Tubez; c) because we've heard his "experience".

Next?

[anonymous 37]

Well, not satire per se, but I thought it would be fun to try some right-wing trolling.

[Frank Wilhoit]

So what does Conservapedia say about Georgia?

Besides, you know, all the peaches....

[Equal Opportunity Cynic]

I'm probably fighting a losing battle to make this point, but content on Wikipedia isn't low-quality per se. In fact where well-sourced, Wikipedia articles can be valuable tertiary sources.

The problem in WP articles is when "facts" crop up that are poorly sourced. (According to WP guidelines, those items should be removed if in contention.)

Now, that said, if McCain's staff is cribbing verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica it would still reflect pretty badly on them. But this ranks in the low 1000s on the list of things that worry me about John McCain becoming President.

[cleek]

yeah, but McCain has military experience, and he says he knows how to win wars, and Obama isn't 500 years old, and the press won't dispute that.

so, this is good news for McCain.

[Anarch]

Now, that said, if McCain's staff is cribbing verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica it would still reflect pretty badly on them.

Not when you consider that McCain probably contributed to it in the first place.

[byrningman]

Now, that said, if McCain's staff is cribbing verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica it would still reflect pretty badly on them. But this ranks in the low 1000s on the list of things that worry me about John McCain becoming President.

I think it's pretty telling actually, the man claims to be the foreign policy expert, but in fact the level of knowledge is derisory. The Wikipedia cribbing, packaged as old man wisdom explaining Georgian history back to the beginnings of time to an America sitting on his knee, is as good a metaphor I've seen yet for his entire candidacy.

Not to mention it's really funny, and I hope he's humiliated for it.

[Xanthippas]

Yeah, and I like how if you go to Memeorandum right now, this "controversy" over what McCain did or did not plagiarize is at the very top, as if this is the MOST IMPORTANT angle of the Russian-Georgian conflict.

[Xanthippas]

Yeah, and I like how if you go to Memeorandum right now, this "controversy" over what McCain did or did not plagiarize is at the very top, as if this is the MOST IMPORTANT angle of the Russian-Georgian conflict.