Talk:Argument map

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2013; 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Did Davies, Barnett, & van Gelder (2019) copy from Wikipedia without acknowledgment?[edit]

I just read a relatively recently published chapter on argument mapping: Davies, Martin; Barnett, Ashley; van Gelder, Tim (March 2019). "Using computer-aided argument mapping to teach reasoning". In Blair, J. Anthony (ed.). Studies in critical thinking. Windsor studies in argumentation. Vol. 8. Windsor: Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric, University of Windsor. pp. 131–175. doi:10.22329/wsia.08.2019. ISBN 9780920233863. OCLC 1125160111. The ebook can be downloaded freely.

In my judgment, parts of this chapter rely heavily on (one could even say "borrow from") this Wikipedia article but without citing the Wikipedia article, which is perhaps a bit disingenuous from a scholarly perspective. If the authors consulted this Wikipedia article, then they should have cited it.

The "A brief history of argument mapping" section of the chapter closely follows Argument map § History. There is essentially nothing in this section of the chapter that is not in the corresponding section of this Wikipedia article.

But the real eye-opener for me was a sentence in the chapter's section on "Argument mapping software": "These range from single-user software such as Rationale, Convince Me and Athena; to small group software such as Digalo, QuestMap, Compendium, Belvedere, and AcademicTalk; to collaborative online debating tools for argumentation such as Debategraph and Collaboratorium." (In this quotation I removed a trademark symbol after "Rationale"; Tim van Gelder, a creator of the Rationale software, was a coauthor of the chapter, and he likely made sure that the trademark symbol was included! Wikipedia doesn't use trademark symbols, per MOS:TM.) Compare that sentence quoted from the chapter to the following sentence in this Wikipedia article: "Single-user argumentation systems include Convince Me, iLogos, LARGO, Athena, Araucaria, and Carneades; small group argumentation systems include Digalo, QuestMap, Compendium, Belvedere, and AcademicTalk; community argumentation systems include Debategraph and Collaboratorium." I wrote that sentence in in 2016 in this Wikipedia article, so I was well-prepared to recognize it (thinly disguised) in someone else's writing. But worst of all here is the fact that all of the information in that sentence comes from the source cited in the Wikipedia article: Scheuer et al. (2010). The sentence is a summary of three paragraphs in Scheuer et al. (2010), and the organization scheme used in the sentence comes directly from organization scheme in the source. But the authors of the chapter never cite Scheuer et al.!!! It appears that they essentially copied the sentence directly from Wikipedia without citing either Wikipedia or the original source of the information!

To me this appears to be another example of academics essentially copying from Wikipedia but not acknowledging the source. Talk about "studies in critical thinking"—this is a good one! Biogeographist (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that one of the authors of the plagiarizing chapter recently tried to add it as a reference in this Wikipedia article! I removed the reference, as it is very close to WP:CIRCULAR to cite in this Wikipedia article a chapter that plagiarizes the Wikipedia article! Biogeographist (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]