McCain Lifts Russia-Georgia Speech From Wikipedia

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 13:55


Via Political Wire, it appears that McCain's vast policy experience and knowledge of international affairs is derived from wikipedia:

A Wikipedia editor notices some similarities between Sen. John McCain's speech today on the crisis in Georgia and the Wikipedia article on the country Georgia. They appear similar enough that most people would consider parts of McCain's speech to be derived directly from Wikipedia.

First instance:
one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)

vs.

one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)

Second instance
After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. (Wikipedia)

vs.

After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises. (McCain)

Now, I love wikipedia, and think it is a great resource. However, lifting your report on a subject directly from an encylopedia is something most people are encouraged to stop doing in, oh, about the sixth grade. If you, your policy team, and your speech writing team are still doing it when commenting on an international crisis while running for President of the United States, that's both pathetic and scary.

If McCain becomes President, we all need to make sure that wikipedia is carefully updated, since it will apparently inform our government on how to handle an international crisis. A properly updated wikipedia could end up determining the fate of the world.  
Chris Bowers :: McCain Lifts Russia-Georgia Speech From Wikipedia

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
McCain Lifts Russia-Georgia Speech From Wikipedia | 42 comments
Positive Spin (4.00 / 4)
McCain has significantly imprived his googling skills.

He's, like, so with it.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

While my proof-reading skills have degenerated (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
didn't someone in the bush press office do the same thing on berlesconi a few weeks ago? (0.00 / 0)
honestly, what is WRONG with these people?
Wikipedia (0.00 / 0)
Clearly, the McCain campaign is just doing a public service of updated Wikipedia at the same time they are researching for a speech.  Good for them.
Please, someone get the democratic talking heads to run with this (4.00 / 1)
or the Obama campaign.

We need to his this again and again and again.



John McCain.  Wrong for America.

that is to say we need to 'hit' this. (4.00 / 1)
And Chris you're point about McCain's "vast foreign policy experience" is exactly the angle we should come at it with.

This is one of the best examples of the emperor having no clothes I have ever seen.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
right-oh (0.00 / 0)
Time to pounce on this one. Destroy his foreign policy 'cred'.
[ Parent ]
We need a spoof ad that shows McCain learning to use the internet (4.00 / 5)
and contains the tag

"Sure, he can use wikipedia...but is he ready to lead?"

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Maybe send him some Video Professor disks? (4.00 / 3)
They're free after all.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Haha...I Love it! (0.00 / 0)


John McCain.  Wrong for America.
[ Parent ]
Probably more important things to push (0.00 / 0)
This doesn't strike me as particulary egregious.  It's a brief chronology of a couple of facts.  (He's not lifting ideas.)  And the language is pretty commonplace--if anything, he could be accused of "lifting" public domain chunks of discourse--but then again, so could Obama in any of his speeches.
okay (4.00 / 1)
1. he's plagiarizing
2. he's plagiarizing not knowing who he's plagiarizing from
3. anyone who uses wikipedia knows that it's not entirely reliable in detail, and should AT LEAST be double checked for things that are important...like candidate speeches or press packets.
4. anyone who uses wikipedia knows that on tense topics (which one might consider the "georgia" entry while Georgia is at war), the information is rarely depoliticized.

All of this amounts to not just a lack of familiarity with the internet, bad research, and poor ethical practices, but a cumulative accusation of bad judgement.

Hoenstly, doesn't this really make you think twice about whether you would want someone making any important decisions when he runs his operations like this?  It's more about competence than anything else.

[ Parent ]
But on the bright side... (0.00 / 0)
If wikipedia had been around in 2001 at least Condi would have known what Al-Queda was.

Seriously, Is McCain going to consult Wikipedia before planning strategy against Iran?

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
also (4.00 / 2)
i noticed that whoever edited the wikipedia text for the McCain speech did a good job taking out passive voice and replacing it with active voice and generally editing for clarity.  I would have liked to see some of the 4th through 19th century history left in - it was interesting :)

I found some more material for them too:

"In the winter of 1991-1992, a military rebellion by the opposition forced Gamsakhurdia to leave Georgia. Unable to cope with many international, economic and other domestic problems the rebel Military Council formed a State Council inviting Eduard Shevardnadze, the former secretary of the Georgia Communist Party and former Soviet Foreign Minister, well-known for his political acumen, personal courage and international publicity, to Georgia. In July 1992, Georgia became the 179th member of the United Nations. Eduard Shevardnadze obtained an overhelming majority of votes in the elections that followed in October of 1992, and was confirmed as chairman of the Parliament of the Republic of Georgia. On August 24, 1995, a new Constitution was adopted. On November 5, 1995, presidential elections were held in Georgia. On November 26, Eduard Shevardnadze was installed as President of Georgia."

Except I attributed it ;)

McCain: my campaign might plagiarize semi-reliable sources to inform the American people, but we'll always edit them for clarity!  Vote McCain!

[ Parent ]
okay (0.00 / 0)
1) it maight be considered plagiarism, although how many words per sentence need to be repeated for it to be considered plagiarism?  This is a problem with defining plagiarism, and my point is that what IS particularly egregious is when one is passing off another's ideas as one's own (rather tha just imitating discourse).

3) doesn't seem to matter, unless these aren't really "facts" about Georgia.  If this were the case, then this really would be a story--it would suggest that McCain is indeed getting all his info on Georgia from Wikipedia.

[ Parent ]
you're getting lost in the details (0.00 / 0)
even i did this for my masters thesis, I would (rightfully) get brought up on plagiarism charges.  This is not a difficult situation to render a judgement of probable plagiarism.

But since McCain's campaign doesn't have a problem with intellectual property violations, I want to know what McCain thinks about RIAA and movie sharing, on pharmaceutical companies patenting AIDS medications and indigenous medicines and raising the costs, etc.  personally, i would love it if wheover wins the election took a loose position on intellectual property norms - but they won't - which again raises the problem of what you do when you have people who say do as i say and not as i do.

[ Parent ]
sorry that should read (0.00 / 0)
even IF I did this for my masters thesis :)
[ Parent ]
Interesting turn . . . (0.00 / 0)
It would be great if this foregrounded in the media and the election the ongoing debates about property rights and fair use.

(I invoked the "details" to make the point that plagiarism is itself not clearly defined and that there are more serious cases of it than others--i.e. not paraphrasing facts "enough" versus rewording and then claiming another's ideas.  The latter would support the claim that the above instance undercuts McCain's foreign policy expertise, but that's clearly not the case here.)

[ Parent ]
plagiarism (0.00 / 0)
'The details I invoked were to point out that plagiarism is not clearly defined.  In addition, there are more serious cases of it than others.  For example, is someone didn't paraphrase facts "enough," as opposed to rewording and then claiming another's ideas.'

See?  not hard :)  I probably did more work than they did :)  Plagiarism is like pornography - you know it when you see it.

[ Parent ]
Your using logic again (0.00 / 0)
and forgetting that presidential campaigns are not logical. The goal is to make McCain an unacceptable choice. One of the best ways to do that in American politics is through ridicule (e.g. the last 4 weeks of attack ads by the McCain campaign). This is a perfect opening to ridicule the McCain campaign for using a source that a 6th grader would use as a basis for their foreign policy statements. It doesn't matter how close to plagarism it is. It's the fact that they used it at all. It's a perfect mocking example and the best part is that it successfully attacks McCain's perceived biggest strength.

That is why you pounce and use it. If put into the media right it could end up on the late-night talk shows and then McCain would really be in trouble. Might be hard to get it on there though since this is about war. But given how shameless the media is, I wouldn't think it's very far-fetched at all.  

[ Parent ]
I agree! (0.00 / 0)
But some of the other posts weren't treating it as a campaign opportunity (or were discussing it in a way that wouldn't be useful as such.)  
[ Parent ]
ah... (0.00 / 0)
gotcha. Understood now.
[ Parent ]
Clearly you're too intelligent to be in politics. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Not particularly egregious? (4.00 / 3)
This guys central theme of his campaign is that he has the experience (particularly the foreign policy experience) to lead this nation and keep America safe.  It's the only thing other than "I'm white and not Obama" that his campaign stresses.  So here, at the outbreak of a war between two countries that he is hitting Obama's statements on, trying to stress his inexperience, we find that "Mr. Foreign Policy" is getting his information from an open source internet encyclopedia???

That couldn't BE more egregious.  It's like he just HEARD of the country of Georgia, and had to go look it up.

This is HUGE, and absurd enough that I believe it will get media play AND resonate with voters.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Well, (4.00 / 1)
there's nothing here that suggests he is getting his information from Wikipedia.  The phrasing is very similar, as it would be in any number of generic textbooks on Georgia.

To argue that his entire knowledge of Geogia comes from Wikipedia is different from arguing he is lifting a few generic phrases from the encyclopedia entry.  

[ Parent ]
right (4.00 / 2)
but that doesn't make this much better.  what it says more about than McCain's knowledge of georgia is how he runs his campaign - that some low level staffer or whoever was in charge of putting together the initial draft of this thought it was completely reasonable to quote wikipedia without attribution in an important policy speech, and that this was able to filter through all the way into the speech.

that, my friends, is poor operations management.

[ Parent ]
The Dog Ate My Yellowcake (0.00 / 0)
that, my friends, is poor operations management.

Boy, howdy!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Look, of COURSE this is plagiarism... (4.00 / 1)
how often do you see even generic facts about a country restated with the same thoughts in the same order.  They might have changed the wording, as would any 5th grader plagiarizing the encyclopedia for a history paper.

But this is bigger than plagiarism, it undercuts McCain's whole argument to be President in a very easy to understand way.

This is a real issue, but it doesn't have to do directly with policy, so I'm not surprised alot of people on my side don't see the big deal about it.

This is the kind of screw up Republicans win elections on, and it's high time Democrats start learning to fit the "seemingly trivial" into larger narratives.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Not sure I follow your point . . . (0.00 / 0)
First, what assignment are you describing?  If the wording is changed, is it plagiarism?  How much of the wording needs to be changed and in what order?  (My point is that when is this plagiarism and Obam's speeches not?)

I don't understand how this undercuts McCain's argument?  How?

I would agree that elections are about turniing the trivial into larger problems/threats, and the Republicans have unfortunately been better at this.

[ Parent ]
OK, I'll see if I can break it down a little. (4.00 / 1)
First of all, while you may not consider this plagiarism since the wording is changed, I think it should be obvious to all that this was simply sourced from wikipedia and put into different words.

The whole idea of having foreign policy experience is that you have been around long enough to know how to deal with the complex issues that a President will invariably have to deal with, and have learned a bit along the way. The more one knows about a given region, the better they are able to make decisions about it (see- Bush not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite).

You would also expect a President to be able to gather and synthesize information well (or at least have people who do that for him).

By contrast, any goofball will first look on wikipedia for information (not to mention that any goofball can PUT information on wikipedia).

It betrays a lack of seriousness (that is less than Presidential) on the part of the campaign that for a major foreign policy address that they would only do a Google search, and not engage in any serious study.

This lack of seriousness undercuts the whole idea of McCain as the "legitimate" experienced candidate.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Let's see (0.00 / 0)
First par: "I think it should be obvious to all that this was simply sourced from wikipedia and put into different words."  --Noone would consider paraphrasing facts to be plagiarism.  (However, copying a few commonplaces to describe facts--as in the McCain example above--perhaps so, but not much of an offense.)

Second Par: This only holds if the above example proves McCain knows little else about Georgia.  It doesn't.

Third: I agree.  Not sure this proves that McCain doesn't know how to "synthesize info" since it's just an encyclopdeic fact about Georgia.  If it shows he doesn't "gather" it well, "well" is more about PR, right?  That others might be able to accuse him of plagiarism.

Fourth: I agree.  But any other goofball can also vet the basic facts about the region beyond Wikipedia.

Fifth: That would be true if these two similarly worded phrases, BECAUSE they are worded that way, invalidated the rest of his foreign policy in his speech.

Six: The logic here escapes me.  That rewording a couple of FACTS in these two phrases means he has no foreign policy experience?


[ Parent ]
I think it undercut the image he's trying to paint of himself. (4.00 / 1)
The whole experience thing is about being the legitimate/safe/reliable/serious candidate as opposed to Obama who is supposedly the risky/empty-suit "Celebrity" who looks good on TV but is naive and unserious.

I personally would be embarrassed to use wikipedia as a source in a college thesis because it's the laziest of lazy-man research (much more in keeping with the image of the naive "empty suit" than with the studious, experienced one), and here it shows up in a foreign policy address by a major presidential candidate?

Quite simply it's just pathetic.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Missing The Point, I Think (4.00 / 1)
ArkansasLiberal is constructing a narrative, something beyond a logical argument.  It's a damn good narrative, IMHO, and one I agree with on every point.

You don't agree on every point, however, so let's just set aside what ArkansasLiberal wrote, and recast the narrative into a form that doesn't depend on the points you've disputed.  It might go something like this:

John McCain says he has all sorts of foreign policy experience.  But how much does he really know?  When conflict broke out between Russia and Georgia, did he draw directly on his own store of knowledge?  No. Did he draw on a network of carefully-cultivated experts built up over the years?  No.

He did what a 6th-grader might have done. He drew on an online, community-edited encyclopedia, from words that even you could have placed there.  He changed the wording just a bit, so that it wouldn't be exact, word-for-word plagiarism.  And that's what he turned into teacher the American people.

Does that sound like the actions of a man who has actually benefitted from years of foreign policy experience?  Or the actions of someone who may have been there, but just wasn't paying attention.

We'll give McCain credit for one thing: At least he didn't say, "The dog ate my homework."

I hope you can see that the core narrative here doesn't depend on any of the points you've disputed.  That's what distinguishes the narrative from the logical argument.  And it's the narrative that's key in election discourse.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Thanks, Paul. (0.00 / 0)
You said it better than I could.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.
[ Parent ]
Maybe (0.00 / 0)
But you said it first.

The rest was really just creative editing. And since that's my day job, I should have some abilities there.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
WOW (0.00 / 0)
This is quite extraordinary. As you said, McCain has just been caught doing something that we wouldn't expect from a sixth-grader.

The way things stand in 2008, the office of the presidency means near-complete power of our country's foreign policy and military apparatus is placed in the hands of a single person. Anyone who cribs from Wikipedia to give a speech about important world events should be disqualified from assuming that power.

I just hope Obama hasn't done the same thing at some point.

Egregious or not... (0.00 / 0)
This should be another point that the Democrats hammer McCain on so that the "punditry" picks up on it and starts talking about "Did McCain plagiarize a speech from Wikipedia?"

It's one of those things that doesn't matter if it's true, as long as the talking heads are talking about it, it's damaging enough.

Again You Just Don't Get It, Chris... (4.00 / 2)
this just shows to go that McCain really does know how to use the intertubes, or innertubes, or whatever they call them.

He's hip.  He's happening.  He cheats on his homework just like Bart Simpson.  Heck, he might even buy a walkman one of these days.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

Plus... The Folks At Conservapedia Must Be Crushed! (4.00 / 2)
But, then, they always knew he wasn't a real conservative!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
Haha...Excellent, Paul (0.00 / 0)
You know it must be nice to live in a logic free world.

So conservatives say that Bush sucks because he "betrayed conservatism" and isn't a real conservative.  He and the Republican congress (who Rush Limbaugh says he never really liked and is relieved he doesn't have to defend anymore (despite the fact that he they did almost everything he's advocated)) are responsible for the tarnishing of the Conservative brand, and without conservatism America and freedom will surely parish.  So it's important to elect a candidate who they know isn't a real conservative because they have to save America from the evil liberals who will no doubt take over when conservatism is fully destroyed by fake conservatives.

Holy Jesus that's alot to keep straight, I can see how just thinking whatever you're told to is much easier for them.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Shorter Version: Logic Is For Sissies (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Sorry, Chris but this one is just silly. (0.00 / 0)
These are NOT particularly exact quotes.  I've seen much worse.  They might easily be from some OTHER source that the Wikipedia authors also used.  These are just basic facts could have come from anywhere.

They don't mean a damned thing, really.  You need a lot worse to make anything of this that will stick.  And when was the last time any presidential campaign used footnotes?

Get real.  There are more important things to spend time on than this.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

McCain Lifts Russia-Georgia Speech From Wikipedia | 42 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox