Of course much of the web is composed of copying, and of course copies of Wikipedia are copied--that's hardly relevant. But science journals are another matter. From the article: "shouldn't the peer reviewers and proofreaders at a top journal catch this error?"
> "shouldn't the peer reviewers and proofreaders at a top journal catch this error?"
You're absolutely right.
I guess I was trying to speak to a broader issue, of why do we see so much blatant copying.
I don't agree with the "Of course...", I don't think this is inevitable at all, in the scope of every way the www could be.
That is eluded to in "...with the inclusion of ads". All of this fraud is motivated by monetization of every aspect of every activity.
Within the bounds of motivating actual progress, monetization is a beneficial process. Once it becomes the motive, with everything else as a means to that end, this is what leads to the "Of course" everything is corrupt.
Effect replaces cause, and everything else goes down the toilet along with it... Including the review of "scientific" papers.
