Two days ago, a few of us took to task an OS member, nom de plume Johnny Fever, who blatantly plagiarized a Wall Street Journal editorial. This member copied the full piece, including its title, from the paid subscription website of the newspaper. For the inattentive reader, the blog post made it seem like it was written entirely by Johnny, and he certainly didn't add anything like quotes or italics to make it appear differently. The biggest sin, however, is that he didn't ask to get permission to use the work.
Before the post was taken down by Salon.com administrators, here's what Johnny had to say about it (initially taken before the post was removed):
"You guys are too much. This whole thing reminds me of the East Anglia email scandal. That was when emails were released to the public showing that climate data was falsified. The liberals, rather than focus on what that meant about the climate science, chose to attack the messenger for obtaining the emails illegally.
No difference here, I mean this is an Internet blog not some college term paper, who gives a fuck if I plagiarize? I'll answer that, liberals only care about proper citation of sources when those sources undercut your entire economic philosophy. As far as I'm concerned, the end justifies the means, as the next generation depends on this generation's ability to change course in November. If by cutting and pasting the article I got a few more reads than if I had only provided a link, then I'll do it again without remorse."
As we can see, this OS member has "no remorse" about cutting and pasting newspaper articles and making them his own for the "greater good" of the conservative movement. He's already done this several times; it's apparently his modus operandi. You can see another perfect example in his recent piece titled "ObamaCare in Reverse", which is also taken verbatim from the WSJ with the same title (note: it is in fact ObamaCare! Even WSJ journalists can make blunders; see my forthcoming post on this subject). Johnny didn't even bother to mention the WSJ in this one. I'm surprised this post still hasn't been removed.
Although Johnny claimed that he cut and pasted the article for the greater good, he didn't explain why he failed to give full attribution to the real author, Mr. William McGurn. Wouldn't this have been a nice gesture? Basically, his actions are not about ideas, but about self-aggrandizement. His plagiarism gives the readers a false impression of his knowledge and abilities. That's not fair. It's especially unfair to the real authors, who actually have the knowledge and abilities Johnny pretends are his.
What Johnny did is illustrative of some of the worst aspects of our culture: blaming others for one's own failings or deciding that "the rules don't apply to me". You'll note that the fault all comes down to those damned liberals, caring so much about copyright. In a subsequent post complaining about OS censorship, he still blames everyone else. He even takes shots at our own Kent Pitman for providing him information about fair use practices. (See here too for useful guidelines.)
In the end, who would have thought that Johnny Fever believed in socialism? Isn't it strange that this member is, to all intents and purposes, stealing from the rich so that poor readers who cannot afford a paid subscription to the Wall Street Journal can get free access to their opinion pieces and articles*? It's just too bad that Johnny doesn't have the courage to at least give the articles proper attribution, since he apparently can't manage to ask for permission to use them.
*See definitions of socialism according to the right:
From Please explain Socialism to an idiot (appropriate?)
"Socialism is like Robin Hood, steal from the rich and give to the poor. The problem is, in this country the rich actually work hard for their money and deserve it…"
From Robin Hood Socialism:
"Steal from the rich to give to the poor, is the creed of Robin Hood. It's a feel good tale of the heroic Robin Hood against the evil rich king, and by extension the rich altogether… …It is the It's Not Fair Complex because they have more than me, so somehow, I get to take what they have earned."
From Socialism is stealing, slavery to the State:
"...Socialism takes the hard work of achievers and gives it to those who do little work so every gets their “fair share.”"
I would like to thank several OS members for the numerous discussions we had here and outside OS.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Abrawang
sagemerlin
FusunA
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
peterguy
Jan Sand
Salon.com
Comments
I read his post this a.m. defending his scurrilous stealing but that's it.
Yep, and the ultimate irony is Mr. Fever's embrace of socialist principles, or at least, his embrace of socialist principles as they're defined by his fellow Rightist bloviators.
I and other admins run a couple of paragraphs of each post through Google, to check for duplicates, before they are awarded Readers' Picks. This is done as a sign of respect to writers regardless of their political beliefs. Kudos go to y'all for both catching and reporting it.
BTW, if there is a more accurate way of checking this, I'd appreciate it if you'd shared it. We'd rather be preventative then to find out later and have to delete.
Of course, pics are a whole different matter, but then again I never claim they're mine either.
Here's the website: http://turnitin.com/. You should check it out. I caught students plagiarizing papers in recent past.
Note: I'll be away for the next few hours.
(On second thought he isn't a boob. Boobs are useful and often decorative, and that sure doesn't describe our Johnny.)
(On third thought, he isn't brainwashed either - I mean, what's there to wash?)
.
I have spent too much time engaging right-wing idiots over the years, and lil' Johnny is a classic example. He thinks everyone else does the same thing he does-- form their opinions by suckling at the teat of pundits and regurgitating their views. This is why he thinks responding with WSJ links equals an adult argument instead of a child's fantasy.
When corrected and called out on his chintzy comment game, he blames it on your irrational rejection of his Strong Conservative Opinion.
Sometimes he plays the "Answer My Stupid Question" game. That involves responding with an off-topic question and spending the rest of the exchange pretending his stupid question is relevant.
But to not realize how dumb it is to plagiarize or steal entire articles points to his general ignorance. That's something every adult should know, as well as they should know how stupid one looks when they present others thinking as their own.
The only hint of something resembling intelligence is he avoids using his real name. It is better to have Johnny Fever become a synonym for Airheaded Simpwit than a name his kid's friends would recognize.
It's one thing to argue, as I have, that there really are no new ideas in the literary world, and that, say, a story about star-crossed lovers isn't an infringement on Shakespeare's copyright (if there were such a thing) of Romeo and Juliet.
But lifting entire lengthy passages -- even with attribution -- from any author's work is usually frowned upon by the publishing organ. When I post here, for example, about something that occurred in my former career, I take pains to ensure that it isn't a word-for-word recitation of something I wrote for, and which is copyrighted by, one newspaper or magazine or another.
As for this person's politics, I've never read his/her posts, and from the sounds of it, wouldn't want to.
Johnny Fever stole something and then admitted he'd do it again in a heartbeat and was without remorse or concern for the overall affect his actions might have. He blames everything on everyone else and spits out such drivel when he isn't plagiarizing that it boggles the mind.
That's worthy of being pointed out, in my view. If I were guilty of this and caught at it, I would expect fully to be pointed out and held accountable.
--r--
I think posts such as this one are a public service. This is not a personal attack; it's an explanation of what happened.
In a venue such as this we generally give each other the benefit of the doubt, and assume that what is posted is the author's original work, unless stated otherwise. Plagiarism is a type of fraud, and in this venue it is a fraud committed against other OS members. When an author not only passes off other people's work as his own, but also states that he plans on doing so in the future, it is important to let other OS members know what is happening so that they are not taken in by the fraud.
Johnny Fever doesn't think plagiarism is wrong, because this is just an internet blog. In saying that he demonstrates an unfortunate contempt for other OS members. If he thinks so little of us, and of his own blog, why should we bother reading what he "writes?"
Rated
And why is stealing pictures different?
Copyright is copyright, whether of written works or of images. End of story.
I have seen a number of pieces on OS, some on the cover in the past with well developed information that at times, based on the authors previous work I suspect was taken from another source. I have never said anything to anyone because I was only suspicious about the material and could not really say they were using it without attributing it. I think that if someone is plagiarizering material and/ or then tries to defend doing it, that is really over the top. I have no respect for people who want to share the news or comment on the news but pretend like they have written the news itself. These are blogs and commenting is something that is a good thing, to give our view on what we want to, explain why, etc. However the thing is so irritating is when I have read something somewhere else and I see it here, or the exact idea is here from somewhere else and that is also not attributed. What I mean is when someone reads something in a news service and then does not mention that is where the idea came from and just acts like they had the idea and they write about it. Not exactly plagiarism but coming woefully close. It reminds me of a movie from the 80's, Working Girl, when one girl explains her thought process of how she came to have an idea about something and the other girl cannot because she "stole" the idea. The very essence of creativity is how you arrive at your ideas.
Many people can copy a picture, but the subject, the idea, the style is what the artist has that is unique. It is the same with words. I think it is great to share news, I do it on other social media all the time. If people stop to read the links I might post, they see what I am interested in. In other words, there is always some kind of trail.
Intellectualism is not about how much you know as much as how you critically think, how you find the information, why it interests you and how you explain it, that is what is sometimes lacking her on OS. Just my 2 bits.
interesting though how different this conversation about plagiarizing on OS has a completely different tone than the last conversation we had on the subject. i'd like to say its because we all learned something the last time...
but i'm pretty sure the real reason is that this johnny guy isnt 'popular'
Rated, for the effort. And the quotes.
And that is the drive-by slams of a person who isn't part of the conversation. I think that kind of thing is pretty low and creates the kind of atmosphere that makes me want to not post here.
And that is the drive-by slams of a person who isn't part of the conversation. I think that kind of thing is pretty low and creates the kind of atmosphere that makes me want to not post here."
Really, dude?
Arthur Louis writes a whole post personally attacking me by name, because he didnt like my liberal politics, and you make him a favorite because of it.
You freakin l hypocrite!
Thanks for everyone’s comments. Greatly appreciated.
As explained by Mishima666, this post was written to make everyone aware about the blatant plagiarism behavior of Johnny Fever. It’s not a personal attack.
Earlier this week, I criticized the content of the post I discussed above (ObamaCare in Reverse). I initially thought that he was the “sole author” of the post, so to speak. Throughout the comments exchange, it became evident that he could not defend his writing. At that point, he finally admitted that he cut and pasted the article directly from the WSJ:
I did not do any independent research as I simply cut and paste a WSJ article…guilty as charged.
And because the article was written by “real” WSJ journalists, he was right and I was wrong. I was right of course, but this is inacceptable, period.
If you don’t want to have all the fingers pointed at you, you don’t plagiarize and pretend that the articles you write are based on your own work. Again, if Johnny would have just admitted that he made a mistake and either remove the posts (or corrected them at least) rather than giving Mishima666, Paul O., Tom C., Kent and I the finger, there would have been no post such as this one. Our views about his lack of intellectual abilities would have remained unchanged, but he would not have been singled out, as it is the case now.
Finally, I did not erase any comments. Baltimore A. was talking about being the first person to criticize Johnny on the post Salon.com administrators erased two days ago. My and his comments were erased at the same time.
http://open.salon.com/blog/mission_fever/2012/05/31/obamacare_in_reverse#comment_2962416
The html code didn't work.
p.s. I was expecting Johnny's account to be terminated instead.
1) Call me Fever
2) I did not plagiarize ( I did copy and paste an article from the WSJ)
I have one comment: Yes, you did.
Do me a favor; find me an instance where I’m guilty of plagiarism.
If you can direct me to another blog where I can speak to more intelligent liberals, please do so, like Baltimore, I’m getting annoyed with the immaturity of the Open Salon community.
I don't know why you're upset with others over your own blatant misbehavior. If we set aside the exposure of your mental sloth and inadequacy, there's an upside to this occurrence. Where you were a largely ignored object of ridicule and derision, you now have gained a slightly wider audience. Famous....infamous...what does it matter? Quit sniveling and learn to own the rolling-in-poop attention you have gained. Besides, you'll get over the smell eventually.
Allow me to restate the facts; unbeknownst to me, Kanuk writes a blog about my actions. The blog contains accusations of wrongdoing and I’m tried and convicted in Kanuk’s court of public opinion as a plagiarizer. With the exception of the person that sent me a personal message, your readers are also guilty of this flagrant display of unethical behavior.
Furthermore, I found it incredibly amusing how Boko, the one commenter that defended my actions (or should I say, the actions Kanuk portrayed me as having), was never provided a personal response. And I find exponentially unethical for your readers to join your mob, without hearing my defense.
This got me to thinking; this type of behavior is a good example of what’s wrong with the Democratic Party. I think it explains the mob-like nature of your party and the double-standard always on display. On the merits of policy alone, Republicans should win in a landslide but when your behavior is factored into the decision, it’s a surprise Democrats have any clout. Thankfully, the independents are starting to agree with me as seen by the 2010 results and the Wisconsin election.
It’s not because lots of other people are plagiarizing and stealing copyrighted material that we should not call anyone on it, especially someone who is proud doing it and indicated that he would do it in a second. As Kent indicated on the other thread, this is not a left-right issue. Johnny is not the first one who was called on it here at Open Salon and got off quite easy compared to others who have been called upon in the past (for those of you who have been here for a long time).
But too bad you don't apply this ethic consistently. Just about every one of these left-liberal commenters will have no moral problem calling for the expropriation of their neighbors through aggression and violence. You simply rationalize this theft by calling it "democracy," the "will" of the "people," "justice," "fairness," "equality," "for the good of the people," and other thought-terminating cliches.
Besides what passes as conservatism lately, I can't think of a more slogan-laden, faith-based, wrong-headed, liberty-adverse cackling gaggle of group-think ideologues dwelling in a fantasy than the libertarians.
One of these days you and Johnny will abandon the common conservative-libertarian bond of promoting the oligarchy and decide to embrace a real, American theory of liberty.
Or maybe not.
Glad to see that you’re also denouncing the theft of other people’s work.
Up to December 2011, there were some newspapers that filed lawsuits against bloggers who copied their articles, even in cases when the person gave full credits (provide a link and make it clear that it wasn't the blogger’s work). I believe the initial amount of money sought was about $70,000. Unfortunately, these newspapers used a law firm (troll) with shady legal practices to sue these people. The law firm was still able to get a lot of money from bloggers and website owners before they went bankrupt (see link above about what happened). I would not be surprised if more law firms will jump on the bandwagon on behalf of the newspapers. This would be a very lucrative business.
Paul: I hope too that people will start embracing the real theory of liberty. This is the only way to avoid “generational theft.”
Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing
Guideline 1: An ethical writer ALWAYS acknowledges the contributions of others and the source of his/her ideas.
Guideline 2: Any verbatim text taken from another author must be enclosed in quotation marks.
-R-
This is a brilliant post. Thank you for calling my attention to it. The comment contributions are priceless. Paul J. O'Rourke impresses me time and again with his rapier wit. They are hilarious, to the point, and stunningly accurate. His comment at 8:26 pm on June 8th in this thread is of particular delight.
Fever seems to be a special case of something that has given me great curiosity in recent years. I'm not a mental health profession, nor a philosopher, but his case seems to have certain characteristics. First, he seems utterly unimpressed with facts and evidence, or he is unwilling to admit it. He will make a bad argument, receive a refutation, and then go back down the same road with the false argument a second and third time. That is very odd until something like this post helps to reveal a possible cause. Johnny Fever doesn't even understand the arguments that he is presenting.
It always fascinates me when a person is willing to reject all civilized practices for his own purposes. These people, in their minds, have a better idea for how civilization should work than thousands of years of collected experience and accumulated wisdom can manage to model. Someday I will understand what goes into making a person like Johnny Fever. For the time being I will have to settle for narcissistic idiocy.
Indeed, I always have a blast reading Paul’s comments, especially when it comes down to Johnny.
Johnny Fever says, "the end justifies the means." The issue was essentially theft. Specifically, the issue is appropriating writing that belongs to another without attribution. Johnny Fever is a conservative. Conservatism is essentially centered on property. Johnny Fever has no respect for the property of the writer, and in fact attempts to launch attacks from that stolen vessel as if it were a hijack aircraft carrier. His use of written material without attribution gives the false impression of numbers. It is clear that numbers in support of him are part of his arguments by his blanket statements against perspectives like "all liberals are...", and by claiming that "independents are beginning to agree with him...", etc. His words show this as a motivation and a value. The use of others words give the false impression of an index having greater currency than it actually has.
So, in addition to his lack of concern for a basic value of conservatism, the respect for property, he also fraudulently represents the frequency with which they are persuasive. While he may not have parsed all of the separate layers of this fraud, a simple respect for truth and fairness would have prevented this sort of corrupt spiral into ethical error.
Why Did Jonah Lehrer Plagiarize Himself?
From the piece:
"The newly minted New Yorker staff writer’s June 12 blog post “Why Smart People Are Stupid” copied, at times word for word, three paragraphs from Lehrer’s 2011 Wall Street Journal story “The Science of Irrationality.”"
"Lehrer’s readers deserve to know whether the stuff he’s representing as new material was first published in Wired in 2009. And his New Yorker editors surely won’t appreciate that he’s been passing off old copy as brand new."
Ring a bell?
We shouldn't be surprised that he displays typical Republican ethics and veracity.
To me, the fundamental distinction between the majority of "conservatives" and "liberals" is the use of reason and tolerance. It is expected of liberals but rejected by the Johnny Fevers of the world very much as he demonstrates here. It will forever be someone elses task to seek what is good for the "society", but not his, the concept is not in his repertoire and his mind is resolutely closed.
The trick is to give him the doubt he would never give to you, and yet not be taken in. That's the discipline of liberalism by which we are often hung.
I'm starting to like a lot more people on OS as I get to know them more, and it is their opinion I value.
Good advice about how to handle him.
There are indeed many people here who I value their opinion. Unfortunately, a few I enjoyed reading have left because of the spam problem and dust ups.
Thanks for dropping by and adding me as a favorite.
Cheater, Cheater is from the Indy Star.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012120801012