Chris Anderson's 'Free' appears to borrow freely from Wikipedia and other sources

Late Tuesday, the Virginia Quarterly Review posted startlingly similar passages from Chris Anderson's new book "Free" and several Wikipedia entries. Language common to both was highlighted in bright yellow. "Chris Anderson's 'Free' Contains Apparent Plagiarism," Web editor Waldo Jaquith wrote.

The common passages -- which include definitions for the phrases "Free Lunch," "There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch" and "Learning Curve" -- appear without attribution within the text. The book has no footnotes or endnotes.

The VQR also saw similarities between "Free" and a book excerpted on the website of the New York monthly the Brooklyn Rail, as well as on an archive of an old bbs. Other careful Googlers have found at least two additional samples of text in Anderson's book that seem to match online resources.

Anderson responded to an inquiry from the VQR by e-mail.

"All those are my screwups after we decided not to run notes as planned, due to my inability to find a good citation format for web sources," he wrote.

As citations for Web sources have been established for some time, this seems an odd explanation from Anderson, who is no publishing novice. His previous book, "The Long Tail," was a bestseller, and he is currently editor in chief of Wired magazine.

The book's publisher, Hyperion, sent a note to VQR, which it posted at the end of the day.

We are completely satisfied with Chris Anderson’s response. It was an unfortunate mistake, and we are working with the author to correct these errors both in the electronic edition before it posts and in all future editions of the book.

The lack of attribution may indeed have been a combination of mistake and lack of oversight. But as one commenter on Gawker lamented, "Can't decide which is more embarrassing -- failing to cite Wikipedia as a source or using Wikipedia as a source."

Wikipedia is one of the resources Anderson lauds -- in  "The Long Tail," he called it a phenomenon. In this one, he writes,  "there is the amazing 'gift economy' of  Wikipedia," later explaining, "Wikipedia makes no money at all, but because an incomparable information resource is now available to all at no cost, our own ability to make money armed with more knowledge is improved."

The whole point of Anderson's "Free: The Past and Future of a Radical Price" is to explore what he calls "the paradox of Free," in which "people are making lots of money and charging nothing."

Anderson's hardcover costs $26.99. Wikipedia is still free.

And within hours, Anderson's Wikipedia's entry had been updated -- with attribution -- to reflect the charges of plagiarism. Updates to "Free" are expected to take a while. Which proves Anderson's point -- I think.

-- Carolyn Kellogg

Comments

[Danny Wu]

HA HA how ironic!

[AgnesW]

This is unacceptable. I wouldn't accept this tired excuse from my freshman students, and I wouldn't accept it from an established writer.

[Edward Champion]

In addition to the Wikipedia swipes, Chris Anderson has also taken entire paragraphs, without modifying them, from other people's books and blog posts without proper paraphrasing. Here are five more examples I've uncovered here:

http://www.edrants.com/chris-anderson-plagiarist/

[Christopher]

Moral dilemma. Should I steal a copy of this book from Barnes & Noble or borrow it from the L.A. Library? No way am I going to pay for it...

[Zachary]

Despite how poor and predictable an excuse Anderson gives, the blogger misses a shot too immediately after by claiming that "citations for Web sources have been established for some time." Anyone familiar with Web source citation systems in any style guide knows that the rules are not established, but rather problematic, and are in fact under incessant fire in all directions from scholars and academe.

[Ian Lamont]

How would Anderson handle this if one of his own writers were involved? How has Wired handled plagiarism incidents in the past?

[JewelD]

Plagiarism is free.

Conscience - priceless.

Talk is cheap.

[fed up]

He's full of crap. I'm working on a project now that is heavily dependent on online sources--and every last quotation stays within the limits of fair use and is fully attributed. But, gee, it gets really hard if you don't have a formal bibliography, because,you actually have to take the two seconds to type: "According to...

And thank you for pointing out how bogus the "web citation format" excuse is! You'd think the editor of Wired would know how to do a Google search: http://www.ithaca.edu/library/research/MLA2009multimedia.pdf

[Sydney]

Seriously, he's the EDITOR of a nationally distributed magazine about the internet, computers and electronics, and he can't figure out how to cite a website? Dude, when all else fails, just tack on the web address, don't just skip over it completely. What an imbecile.

[ladyofargonne]

"All those are my screwups after we decided not to run notes as planned, due to my inability to find a good citation format for web sources."

that sentence is the only original thing he's said. and it's true. he did screwup.

[allan]

Wikipedia is seldom a best source for quotes or definitions, it is just the easiest to access. If original thought is too difficult, take a longer time between books.

[Matos Silva]

How can we get a Free copy of Mr. C Anderson's book?

[Mister Snitch]

Anderson's an original thinker, as shown by his body of work. Lots of jealousy out there, which has lead to some of the snarky, self-satisfied conclusions that are posted here. Try writing a book sometime (which most of the commenters here have not). The errors will abound, no matter how many editorial passes you make. It's an endless job, like pulling weeds from a lawn.

Besides which, the citations of wrongdoing are trivial. He pulled a couple of definitions from Wikipedia. He didn't pull the whole damn book from it. Get real.

This looks like an honest mistake to me.

[Nancy]

The ebook edition I just downloaded (for free) gives credit to wikipedia repeatedly in the main body of the text. I didn't realize that he had not sited wikipedia previously. I guess the electronic version was updated after the controversy. Interesting, how an eBook can start diverging from its printed version.