Quote
Look at the number of web sites that copy language directly from other sites without attributing the information to an author. I was recently doing research on "kidney failure in dogs," and of the first five web sites I found, four of them said the same thing, in almost identical words. "Research" used to mean going to a number of sources and copying the pertinent information from each onto a note card, then summarizing it in your own words, with reference to the sources. Now it means going to Wikipedia (unless your teacher has warned you that they will be checking the Wikipedia entry, so you find a different site), highlighting the text, hitting "copy," and pasting the language that you have found into your own document. Since the person doing the "research" hasn't actually typed any of the text, they have no motivation to go to the additional trouble of stating it in their own words.
On the plus side, though, Google makes it really really easy to get caught. And there are software packages specifically designed to catch plagiarisers. A class or two ago, in a discussion thread, somebody said something high-falutin'. The professor replied that it was a quote from a website (he had the URL) and in future please use your own words.

And all my professors have stated that you can't use Wikipedia as a source. At all. It might give you an idea of where to look for info, but it cannot be relied on, should not be quoted, and is ineligible as a reference.

PJ

"You told me you weren't like other men," she said, shaking her head at him when the storm of laughter had passed.
He grinned at her - a goofy, Clark Kent kind of a grin. "I have a gift for understatement."
"You can say that again," she told him.
"I have a...."
"Oh, shut up."

--Stardust, Caroline K