Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> "DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
> news:9HK5j.30644$Pv2.19404@newssvr23.news.prodigy. net...
>> Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?
>> Aside from the editorial composition and WiKi format, the core information
>> is "googled" from knowledgeable sources.
>>
>
> So basically Navas plagiarized it? I should have known! :-)

Plagiarized might be too strong of a word.

If a student "buys" a term paper and copies it, then passes it off as
his original work; that's plagiarism.

If a seminary student writing a comprehensive study of the New Testament
and quotes almost 100% of it as an essential part of his work; that's
not plagiarism.

If an MBA student writes a discussion about economic theory and uses the
information of previous economists (with appropriate use of quotations);
that's not plagiarism.

If a scientist promotes his own original work and uses references to
previous scientific studies to support his work; that's not plagiarism.

For the most part, WiKi articles are edited compilations of previous
works, and we see that in the long list of references at the bottom of
most WiKi pages.

John has clearly demonstrated he is not a professional in the cellular
industry - as some of us are by virtue of the fact we have worked on
cellular systems and thus have "hands on" experience.

When confronted with facts that conflict with what we may post, we
either make a clarification to eliminate ambiguousness or offer
citations to back up what we offer. This is not to be confused with
"back-peddling" or "moving the goal posts".