Read the update at the bottom, old article preserved for amusement potential only!
While doing some research on the internet yesterday, I couldn't help but notice an interesting little detail. I was investigating some of the history behind Cameroon for an important write up I had to take care of. For some background knowledge, I started at one of my favorite sources, Wikipedia. User edited, up-to-date, and very accurate, it's a great place to start your research. As I delved deeper, I checked out some government websites, including the usually very precise US Department of State. What I found there suprised me quite a bit:
Let's start by reading the Wikipedia article. The history section sounds like a good place to start, it's near the top of the page and is an important part of this country's information:
Seems like a pretty interesting country so far, right? Sure, why not. So let's read on to see what the US Dept. of State has to say on this topic:
Wait wait wait...back up for a minute. Didn't I just read the same thing over again? Why, sure I did! Let's check out the differences between these two blocks of text:
That's it? Yep, besides a few grammar corrections, that's it. What's more is this document was posted to the US Dept. of State website in January, 2006. The Wikipedia revision you see above was pulled on April 27, 2006. Let's try our luck with a revision from January 2006, shall we? Here's what's changed between January 2, 2006, and April 27, 2006:
Why, it's one of the sentences which has mysteriously appeared on Wikipedia sense the last US Dept. of State edit! However, the Mandara kingdom sentence is still there. The US Dept. of State didn't even bother to grab the newest version!
At this point some of you may ask just what the heck the US Dept. of State was doing, but let's take a moment to clear things up. First, it's obvious the Wikipedia page has been around for quite some time, and has evolved from that older state. What that basically means is the Wikipedia page isn't a copy of US Dept. of State material (which would be perfectly legal anyway, the US Government is not allowed to place copyrights on their material). Have a look for yourself. What's more, the US Dept. of State page doesn't even mention Wikipedia, let alone any sources at all. Check it out, or view a Google cache (you never know when they might pull this to save their necks). While your there, do a bit of your own comparing with the History of Cameroon and Cameroon article on Wikipedia. You'll find this isn't an isolated case.
So that's all cleared up, but let's ask a few important questions here. First, what buisness does the US Dept. of State have ripping information from Wikipedia? While it's publicly editable, it's in no way public domain. All content on Wikipedia is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License. What's that boil down to? This passage about covers it:
Hrm, that's odd. I don't see this license, a copyright notice, or a notice that this license applies to the document on the US Dept. of State website. Something about that strikes me as breach of contract. But hey, anything must be legal for the government. Right? Riiiiight?
So let's leave the legal issues behind and finish on a high note. After all the recent fiasco about the quality of Wikipedia information, I can't help but feel confidence in it when my own government seems to trust it. The US Dept. of State is an awfully famous institution, and if they have faith in Wikipedia, that's surely a pretty good endorsement. (for those of you chuckling under your breath, that was the CIA that had some issues folks :P)
So what's next? You decide. I'm going to spread the word, but it takes more than one man to open your own government up to the world of copyright. You can start by contacting the US Dept. of State, or simply passing this page out to your friends. Give it a go!
UPDATE: Some people did some great digging and found a copy of the original US Dept. of State document. And guess what? It just barely predates the Wikipedia page. Though it closes the government issue, I can't help but think it still highlights a serious problem. With the aformentioned Wikipedia quality issues, it's disturbing to note that much of Wikipedia is still filled with robot generated content. It was a great way to fill up the database in the early days, but at what cost? Loss of accuracy as original sources are lost. Can't we just cite and avoid this whole problem?