Regarding this "history-computer.com" web site of one Georgi Dalakov:
The Whirlwind article on
history-computer.com referenced in the IBM
memory thread contains this:
...
Construction of the machine started in 1948, an effort that
employed 175 people,
including 70 engineers and technicians.
Whirlwind took 3 years to build and first went online on April
20, 1951.
The project's budget was $1 million a year, and after three
years the Navy had lost interest.
However, during this time the Air Force had become interested in
using computers to help the task
of ground controlled interception (the Cold War just began), and
the Whirlwind was the
only machine suitable to the task.
...
(
http://history-computer.com/ModernComputer/Electronic/
Whirlwind.html )
The Whirlwind article on Wikipedia contains this:
...
Construction of the machine started the next year, an effort
that employed 175 people
including 70 engineers and technicians.
Whirlwind took three years to build and first went online on
April 20, 1951.
The project's budget was $1 million a year, and after three
years the Navy had lost interest.
However, during this time the Air Force had become interested in
using computers to help the task
of ground controlled interception, and the Whirlwind was the
only machine suitable to the task.
...
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlwind_(computer) )
There are no references or sources cited in the
history-computer.com
article. On the "sources" page for the site there is a simple global
reference to "Wikipedia". While one might question who is copying who
or if they have a common author, some indication is provided by
another example:
Just a few days ago I ended up at the
history-computer.com article
about Edmund Berkeley's Simon machine:
http://history-computer.com/ModernComputer/Personal/Simon.html
I've investigated and written about Simon in some depth, so I was
interested in what someone else might have to say about it. The
article begins with some standard biography of Berkeley, but as I was
reading the technical description of Simon, various sentences started
to sound very familiar: the technical bits are a wholesale rip-off of
my own writing:
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~hilpert/e/simon/index.html
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~hilpert/e/simon/def.html
A third of Dalakov's article is a cut-and-paste effort of entire
paragraphs, sentences and themes lifted straight from my article,
with some occasional rephrasing and reorganisation to fit it into his
article. No links, references or attributions are given to my article
or site (not surprising - one wouldn't want to make it easy for
others to spot such plagiarism.)
Dalakov is simply ripping off other people's writings and efforts.
While word-for-word plagiarism is bad enough, the cut-and-paste
mixing of material means context and accuracy can be lost. It is not
original work and his site is nothing to place any reliance on.