Citation Regression

I don't know why, but people cite in some pretty weird ways.  I'm currently reading an essay, trying to find some material for my paper on anonymity.  I found the following quote that seemed pretty useful:

Anonymity inherited in many electronic communications modes not only fosters playful disinhibition but reduces social accountability, making it easier for users to engage in hostile, aggressive acts (Li, 2007). (The Impact Of Cyberbullying...)

So I found the paper that was being paraphrased which actually stated

Anonymity inherited in many electronic communication modes “not only fosters playful disinhibition but reduces social accountability, making it easier for users to engage in hostile, aggressive acts” (Herring, 2001). (New Bottle But Old Wine...)

 Damn, that's not even a paraphrase.  That's straight up copy-pasting. But time to find out what Herring based her statement off of...

Such occurrences expose the dark side of recreational CMC, in which anonymity not only fosters playful disinhibition (Danet et al., 1997), but reduces social accountability, making it easier for users to engage in hostile, aggressive acts. (Gender and Power...)

Ok... so what the fuck did Danet actually say?

Danet's paper is not about anonymity at all. In fact, a search of the paper only has three hits for "anon*"  and two of those are in the citations.  The word "disinhibition" doesn't appear in the paper either.  However, this is a pretty good paraphrase of Danet's article at large since it concerns itself with the "playful" aspect of the Internet.

What I think it weird is why didn't Johnson (the author of the original paper who cited Li) just cite Herring?  Probably because he was a lazy fuck.