User talk:Bendersghost

Wikipedia is operating a policy of stealth plagiarism by taking unique information that is published by authors, to correct its own errors, and then justifying not citing the authors whose unique discovery they just plagiarized on the grounds that the site where they published it is deemed by Wikipedia to be unreliable. Wikipedia has been publicly shamed for it here:

I would like to know what will be done to correct this disgracefully psychopathic, irrational, self-serving unethical behavior.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Moral panic, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You, Orange Mike, are merely operating within a cult that thrives by lazily plagiarizing the original work of mythbusters. The consequence of your behavior and that of other Wikipedia editors is to produce the unintended consequence of ensuring that fallacies are now going to stay in the public domain for longer than would otherwise be possible by utilization of internet technology. Your lazy plagiarism of innovative myth busting originators will stop them from freely entering the results of their endeavors into the public domain because the likes of you are pretending (plagiarizing new information) that you bust the myth. Consequently, easily corruptible academics will take information from Wikipedia and remain silent while the whole world thinks they discovered new information. I see your attempts to rationalize your plagiarism were shot down in flames on the Best Thinking site where your fellow Wikipedians stole unique information. And you have the audacity to call me a vandal SHAME ON YOU!!! You immoral plagiarizer! Everyone look here at how Orange Mike fails to justify being a shameless plagiarizer: http://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=20733

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to User talk:Bendersghost. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bullshit. Facts cannot be copyrighted; thus, there is no plagiarism involved. Sutton is just in a snit because he is not getting sufficient (in his arrogant opinion) props for his unearthing of facts. That's not the attitude of a scholar; it's the attitude of a would-be "Internet celebrity" with his knickers in a twist. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Orangemike Clearly you are unable to comprehend anything outside the rules you are blindly following. You confuse copyright with citation ethics. Surely you realize the two are completely distinct. And you fail to comprehend the meaning of plagiarism. Why? because it serves your purpose to fail to do so. You can't debate the issue at all because you are wrong. You resort to childish name calling - snit? knickers? Wikipedia's reputation is suffering from your and other editors unethical childish behavior and that of all Wikipedia editors who are failing to cite the work of those who discover the bullshit that you talk of. But you don't get it do you? Why not? Why don't you get it Orangemike? Because to get it you'd have to admit that your beloved Wikipedia is actually spreading myths and through misappropriation of the work of those who bust those very myths by stealing their work and failing to cite the fact that they bust the very myth you were spreading - you can pretend that YOU discovered it was a myth - it is your own ego that is under threat. Might I suggest you actually go and do something original rather than parasiting off the work of scholars and pretending it is your own work. Stealth plagiarism is a phrase that is going to haunt Wikipedia for the way it hides its errors by stealing the work of those that discovered them and pretending that Wikipedia did so. You underestimate the influence of the groundswell of the skeptical community that fully understands the meaning of unintended consequences.

Perhaps some simple questions and answers will make the facts of Wikipedia's myth mongering and stealth plagiarism clearer for you to comprehend.

(Q1) Who was it who uniquely discovered that the phrase and concept of moral panic was not coined and originated in the 1960's?

Answer 1 = Dr Mike Sutton on the best Thinking Website

(Q2) Did Wikipedia take the references to the previously undiscovered literature that Sutton uniquely discovered to bust that decades old myth and then publish the information on the Wikipedia Moral Panic page?

Answer 2 = Yes

(Q3) Did a Wikipedia editor refuse to cite Sutton as the originator of this new information but retain the information?

Answer 3 = Yes on the grounds that the information is 100 % correct and unique but the site that uniquely published it is deemed by the Wikipedia editor to be unworthy of citation. And this same editor has it on his Wikipedia profile that "Wikipedia's philosophy is that experts are scum."

(Q4) Despite the fact that Sutton says he has over 300 examples of Wikipedia pages disseminating pervasive myths, and that he has been releasing this information (ahead of his forthcoming book) into the public domain, to aid the war of veracity over fallacy), but that he will now cease to do so because Wikipedia is unethically plagiarizing his myth busting (slyly passing it off as the discovery of wiki editors) so that others will be falsely invented as originators of the myth bust, will you still continue to steal the efforts of thousands of hours of his original work by plagiarizing it by passing his discoveries off as though they are your own?

Answer 4 = I don't understand the difference between plagiarism and copyright. But, anyway, you can't copyright myth busting so its OK to pretend that the work of other people is Wikipedia's own discovery. And anyway don't get your knickers in a twist because Sutton is just a "snit" because all experts are scum and we don't want to cite the fact that it is experts and not us who corrected our own past inept myth mongering.

(Q5) So you do not care that Sutton is now going into print with this story and will now start a campaign of shaming Wikipedia with a first of many to come lists of (just to begin with) 300 Wikipedia pages that are 100 % wrong and that he will inform his readers that the unintended consequences of Wikipedia's institutional stealth plagiarism policy is what delayed this important information entering the public domain months ahead of the publication of his book?

Answer 5 ...... go on Ornagemike I'll let you answer this one. Try writing something a bit more intelligent and mature than "knickers" If you are able that is.