2

I want to write down this idea that I get from Wikipedia: both (James Watson and Francis Crick) thanked the Schroedinger's book for their inspiration.

(More specifically, that page is What Is Life?, and that idea comes from the last sentence of the second paragraph.)

This is what the wiki writes:

each respectively acknowledged the book as a source of inspiration for their initial researches.

Of course that statement has a reference back up. My problem is that I can't figure out how to write that idea down without using the exact one used by the wiki. In my opinion, that sentence is better than any sentence I can think of to rephrase it. If I just use it anyway without quoting it, I'm afraid that I will be plagiarism. If I say that it is from Wikipedia, well, you know the result. My best solution I can find is using this clause:

stated by Wikipedia, with Julian F. Derry (2004) backs up

But it is super awkward. In case I can't think of any better sentence, do you know how should I do?

ff524
  • 108,934
  • 49
  • 421
  • 474
Ooker
  • 8,266
  • 6
  • 54
  • 114
  • Quoting and citing is not plagiarism -- plagiarism is claiming others' work as your own. By quoting and citing you are not doing that. – Dave Clarke Mar 19 '15 at 14:27
  • So you are suggest that all I need is using the quotation marks and leave it without saying where it is from? – Ooker Mar 19 '15 at 14:31
  • 1
    NO. You need to say where it is from -- citing the source. – Dave Clarke Mar 19 '15 at 16:12
  • actually, I'm not writing a paper, which demands highly creditable, but only writing a normal stuff. Still I need to cite it? – Ooker Mar 20 '15 at 11:57
  • 1
    Not citing is plagiarism whether you are writing a paper or not. Putting a quote in without putting the source is non-sensical. – Dave Clarke Mar 20 '15 at 12:52

2 Answers2

7

Should I quote Wikipedia if I can't rephrase it?

Yes. If the important thing is the facts (and not the phrasing), then forget what Wikipedia said, read the source cited there, and work from that to find your own wording. But if Wikipedia has a better phrasing than anyone else has, and you want to copy that phrasing, then you need to credit it to Wikipedia. You shouldn't use this phrasing while trying to disguise the fact that it came from Wikipedia, or try to modify it just enough that nobody can be sure of its origins. You should either credit Wikipedia or rewrite it from scratch.

If the quote is genuinely great, then using it makes sense, and nobody will care that it came from Wikipedia. (It's reasonable to question Wikipedia as a source for facts, but that's not a reason to avoid crediting it for good writing.) However, I'm not convinced this quote is so obviously wonderful that quoting it would look natural. Would it be that much worse to say something like this? "Schroedinger's book was written for a popular audience, but it was nevertheless highly influential among scientists. For example, it inspired Crick to take up the problem of the physical basis of genetics." (Note that the Derry reference you mention never says it inspired Watson except via Crick. Wikipedia cites Watson's book "Avoid Boring People" for its influence on Watson, but I haven't checked what he says there. Derry cites "The Double Helix", but I haven't checked that either. In any case, you'd need to check these references, see how to incorporate Watson, and add a suitable citation.) I'm not saying this phrasing is ideal, but it could be good enough, and I bet you could come up with various alternatives, depending on exactly what you want to convey. I doubt it's crucial to your paper that this one sentence convey exactly what Wikipedia said. If it is, then quoting Wikipedia is fine, and if it's not, then the whole issue is not so important.

Anonymous Mathematician
  • 132,532
  • 17
  • 374
  • 531
  • Thanks for your answer. I'm not a native speaker, so that it is not easy to make a complicated sentence. The problem is that I want to make a sentence as condense as possible. – Ooker Mar 19 '15 at 16:46
  • 1
    actually, I'm not writing a paper, which demands highly creditable, but only writing a normal stuff. Still I need to cite it? – Ooker Mar 20 '15 at 11:57
  • @AnonymousMathematicia, By citing Wikipedia, you are suggesting that the text on Wikipedia is "original research". How does this match up with the policy that Wikipedia forbids original research? – Pacerier Jul 09 '15 at 08:17
  • @Pacerier: Wikipedia could have an exceptionally well-phrased description of something that is not original research. Anyone who quotes that description would need to cite Wikipedia to give credit for the quote. (It would also be best to give a more authoritative reference to establish the actual facts.) – Anonymous Mathematician Jul 09 '15 at 12:21
1

I believe you should quote the initial source, not wikipedia. Quoting an article will not change in time, while nobody guarantees that a wikipedia entry will be the same after, say, a year or two.

Now, I don't see any problem in rephrasing what the wikipedia article says in other words, thus avoiding plagiarism, while also citing the original source.

E.g. "both scientists have acknowledged that their initial researches were inspired by [book citation]."

george
  • 1,607
  • 13
  • 18
  • very clever. You don't rephrase that sentence, you just reorder it. – Ooker Mar 19 '15 at 14:34
  • Wikipedia is version controlled, it's trivial to link to a specific version of a page, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Watson&oldid=643394062 – blmoore Mar 20 '15 at 14:15