Depends on your definitions. If someone makes a copy of the Mona Lisa and claims it as their own, does it stop being a great painting? (Or if you don't think th

Depends on your definitions. If someone makes a copy of the Mona Lisa and claims it as their own, does it stop being a great painting? (Or if you don't think the Mona Lisa is a great painting, replace with whatever you think is.) In fact given what I can tell of the author(s) in this case, we should be grateful it's so heavily plagiarized; the less they plagiarized (and the more they inserted their own content), it seems the worse it would be. :-) ---------------------------------- BTW I took a look at the article again, and it contains solely of two paragraphs picked up verbatim from Wikipedia, followed by the remaining paragraphs each verbatim from book. The only changes I could detect were: 1. where the book mentions "Starting with the work of the social psychologist Festinger", the article has "Starting with the work of the social psychologist Leon Festinger" with a link to the Wikipedia article for him 2. the article introduces random bolding of various words 3. where the book says > There are thousands of variations to these plaints, but the one thing we never seem to hear is a simple... the article says (turning the correct "hear" into "here") > There are thousands of variations to these objections, if you are interested in finding more, check out devexcuses or programmingexcuses. But the one thing we never seem to here is a simple... Apart from that, there doesn't seem to be a single original sentence in the article.