Hello Judy (or Thomas or Kerry or whomever monitors the open.editor email account),
As I'm sure you're probably (unfortunately) aware, there has been a bit of a plagiarism scandal on Open Salon these past couple of days. Scanner posted a piece that was largely cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia, and when this was pointed out in his comments a royal fracas ensued. There were lively debates in the comments, counter posts, counter counter posts, and so on. Knives came out on both sides. Comments became vicious. It got personal and ugly and I hope you didn't waste too much time reading it, because some of the comments were among the ugliest stuff I've ever seen on Open Salon.
Normally I avoid these little community squabbles when they occur, but since I work at a University Writing Program I felt I had a dog in this particular fight. I feel that it should be common sense that you can't cut-and-paste something that someone else wrote and pass it off as your own, yet that is what happened, and a disheartening number of people stepped up to aggressively defend it. Besides the obvious issues of intellectual integrity--to which I could speak at great length--both the Open Salon and Wikipedia Terms of Service forbid this type of "borrowing" without proper attribution:
From the Open Salon Terms of Service:
15. COPYRIGHT Salon respects the intellectual property rights of others. We prohibit users from uploading, posting or otherwise transmitting materials that violate the intellectual property rights of others.
And from the WikiMedia Foundation Terms of Use:
You can re-use content from Wikimedia projects freely, with the exception of content that is used under "fair use" exemptions, or similar exemptions of copyright law. Please follow the guidelines below:Re-use of text:
- Attribution: To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikimedia community. Text from external sources may attach additional attribution requirements to the work, which we will strive to indicate clearly to you. For example, a page may have a banner or other notation indicating that some or all of its content was originally published somewhere else. Where such notations are visible in the page itself, they should generally be preserved by re-users.
- Copyleft/Share Alike: If you make modifications or additions to the page you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later.
- Indicate changes: If you make modifications or additions, you must indicate in a reasonable fashion that the original work has been modified. If you are re-using the page in a wiki, for example, indicating this in the page history is sufficient.
- Licensing notice: Each copy or modified version that you distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC-BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink or URL to the text of the license or b) a copy of the license. For this purpose, a suitable URL is: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
- For further information, please refer to the legal code of the CC-BY-SA License.
There was one comment that I found particularly illuminating, and really illustrated the problem here. In the comment, 1_Irritated_Mother compared the Open Salon fight to an unreasonable student in an academic setting:
Here's the scene:
TEACHER - This is not original work.
STUDENT - Yes it is.
TEACHER - No, it's not. See this?
(consequence - STUDENT fails and is possibly expelled)
STUDENT - Moooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
MOM - What?
STUDENT - My teacher hates me. She picks on me. I didn't do it.
(consequence - Mom becomes enraged)
MOM - TEAAAAAAACHERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRr!!!!
TEACHER - What?
MOM - You're a horrible shrew and you bully my child.
TEACHER - Your kid cheated.
MOM - No he didn't. And I know he didn't because that was an accident - an oversight, an omission - and if you don't give him a passing grade, I'll go to the principal and I'll go after your job.
(Consequence - Teacher has to choose between moral obligation to society and edicts of professionalism or avoiding conflict)
OK - it doesn't always go down like that, but it does sometimes. The fact is that plagiarism is unacceptable. Regardless of how you get found out, it is never ok.
It's a good example, but the problem with it is that in the Open Salon corollary, there is no teacher. It's just the students fighting with each other, and because of the lack of an authority figure the student who can rally the biggest gang and fight the dirtiest wins, regardless of who's in the right.
Because this issue was such a large focus of attention in the Open Salon community, and since so many members of the community have demonstrated their willingness to aggressively defend plagiarism, I feel an editorial intervention should be made. Ordinarily I'd say a quiet intervention would be best, but due to the massive amount of attention this issue received over the past couple of days I don't feel a simple note to Scanner informing him that the offending essay will be removed will suffice. There should be a public statement from the editors. And while I feel the editors should remain well above the fray when there are personality clashes on Open Salon, this was no mere personality clash or legitimate difference of opinion. This is an issue of intellectual integrity and the integrity of writing on Open Salon. At my University, a student caught plagiarizing is usually required to withdraw from the school for a year. The issue is that serious.
I hope you will be making a definitive announcement that clarifies Open Salon's position on plagiarism, stating in no uncertain terms that passing off another person's work as your own is unacceptable. Open Salon should make clear that it is a venue for original work.
Thank you,
Shaggylocks
--------------------
UPDATE: Here's a bit of food for thought for those of you interested in avoiding plagiarism in your work. A couple of times already I've seen the question asked of whether or not you can plagiarize yourself. The short answer is yes. In the academic world, for example, if you write a paper and include a paragraph or two from another paper you wrote for another class, that is plagiarism, and is still a seriously punishable offense, even though you were the author of both papers. What does this mean in the blogosphere? D. Selke Bouffard wrote a short piece that explains it very well here. If you cross-post on another blogging platform, you might be interested in checking this link out.
--------------------
UPDATE II: Wow. I never add "updates" to my posts, and now I've added two. I feel like Glenn Greenwald, except without the monster Constitutional knowledge.
There are several things that came up in the comments that I'd like to acknowledge and address, but first I want to make a quick note about my first update. Another user PMed me and suggested I add the D. Selke Bouffard link, and since I thought it was an interesting perspective on the issue of plagiarism in the age on the Internet, I quickly wrote an update, thinking others might find it interesting as well. I was running between classes and I didn't have a chance to read any of the newer comments, so I didn't realize it was already being discussed.
First, I'd like to address a point She Blogs raised. She said:
I do want to point out, though (because well, we all have to point something out, don't we?) that while you and others keep insisting that this is about plagiarism, why does everyone then go on to say something like what you said in a comment here:
"a large part of this specific problem was Scanner's reaction."Now it's no longer about where he got his info and whether he was researching and compiling facts about the song or if he was copying and pasting... now it's about his reaction, which is certainly not plagiarism.
If I say my only concern is plagiarism and creative integrity, then why would I make a statement like this? Well, let me reiterate: my main concern is plagiarism and creative integrity. Scanner and I run in different circles here on OS: I've come across a handful of his posts, and he's probably come across a handful of mine, but we're not friends or enemies or frienemies or what have you. I've also never heard of or read anything by Bonnie, and I have only passing familiarity with the other main players in this drama. Like I said, my concern here is, first and foremost, plagiarism.
Yet it impossible to ignore the fracas that ensued or Scanner's (and others') pivotal role in fanning those flames, especially when there were so many comments made that suggested the problem lay in the way the accusations of plagiarism were made. To borrow and slightly alter Cartouche's metaphor, the troublemakers aren't the people who point out that you've stolen a bike (although they can certain exacerbate the problem), the troublemaker is the bicycle thief. If the thief fights back when confronted with his larceny, well, that just makes things worse.
Which leads to my next point. Scanner, I perhaps could have given you a bit more benefit of the doubt, but that's difficult when you squander that benefit with ugly and childish attacks. Julie and Ablonde (and others) have also provided a fair amount of evidence of a history of plagiarism, which was ignored in favor of these attacks. Perhaps they have some sort of vendetta against you, like you claim. It's possible, but it's not really the issue.
It's also important to note that "cut and paste" plagiarism is but one kind of plagiarism. Going through with a thesaurus and changing a couple of words but keeping the structure of the original idea in place is also plagiarism. This plagiarism actually tends to be dealt with more severely, since it is often done with the intent of obscuring the original theft.
Perhaps nothing will come of any of this. Perhaps the editors are too busy, or perhaps they don't care. Like Kierkegaard struggling to infer the intentions of God, the Editors' silence on this matter leaves us with only our own interpretations. If I steal a bicycle and God doesn't punish me, does God care? Does he condone my theft? We are left to construe morality as we see fit, and I, for one, find the world to be a better place when less bicycles are stolen.
--------------------
And I'm in the desert in my avatar picture. I'm looking at sand.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
crazypants
King Kaufman
Ken Honeywell
Bill S.
Juliet Waters
She Blogs
Salon.com
Comments
Amen brother.
Thank you.
NY Times Texts Without Contexts
Great post.
R
And what about the dog, did you forget about the dog? Uh-huh, thought so (poopy-head!).
Or what if like aliens or something took his family hostage and stuff and they like made him do this. What about that? You think you so smart, did you even take a minute to consider this possibility?
And besides it's not like he published this on some public forum or something.
and.... for sending Scanner a bunch of traffic to his blog!
He is such a great man and he learned a great lesson from this experience!
I did send this to the editors. Their email address is open.editor@salon.com, in case you need to contact them in the future. I was busy this weekend and came across the "dust-up" a little too late to fully join in. I did notice, however, that there was an interesting gender divide, which lead to some unfortunate names and accusations. I wanted to post this openly to demonstrate that men can be plagiarism-hating hootchie skanks, too. It's not just the "same old troublemakers" trying to stir up trouble: this is actually a legitimate legal issue and, perhaps more importantly, an issue of integrity.
Well, it was something you were SUPPOSED TO READ when you signed up here; after all, you had to ACCEPT IT before you were allowed to create an account:
http://open.salon.com/support/terms
Funny, you must have JUST done it too? Only two comments and no posts. Wonder why that is?
If it was a lesson on plagiarism, he has learned nothing.
Well, damn! You're right, aren't you?
You said "While you're at it, please do away with anyone who does not use his/her real name, who uses lists, who dares to violate good rules of grammar, who makes typos, who doesn't like Obama, who DOES like Omaba, who deletes comments, who deletes posts, who has naked avatars, and who wear purple on Fridays and/or giggles in church."
And shaggy's reply was Kate, this has nothing at all to do with "discomfort." You cannot equate plagiarism with disliking Obama.
How silly of me not to see that.
Editors,
Shall we cross our fingers and/or hold our breath or is there hope for some action here?
When the consequences to any TOS violations are consistently inforced, there will be little room for lynch mobs. Lynch mobs are notoriously "right" in principle, but wrong in tactic.
I am dismayed and disappointed in seeing plagiarism. I am also dismayed and disappointed in seeing verbal bloodshed.
Thanks for your wonderful post. ~r!
That being said, tho' some of us THINK we understand our roles here, we are all operating on sufferance from a staff which had been overbooked longsince.
I myself had been confused about a number of things at the start of my time blogging on OS. Sometimes I found a standoffish tone. It became clear our roles were divided along lines of social strata as in any other walk of life. Our treatment of one another had better take on a further respectful tone. I for one prefer to avoid fighting. But I do believe in standing up for the right principle.
Being mindful of what we do for the public at large here is a tricky thing to keep up with. Here we are, that others may come read and reread at will whatever you and I choose to say here.
It limits us to think we are watched over or bulldogged into toeing a line that is drawn by our staff. It may further limit the way we think to have our voices shrunk back from their most pertinent points.
But I can see where staff are headed here, in that we all must be careful and watch over our beloved OS together, and with the common goal that it's all right to share, not so okay to disparage the work of others or their views, feelings, or life experiences. Certainly NOT okay to post before checking one's sources, along with giving credit when credit is due.
If we are an OPEN forum (emphasis on the OPEN of Open Salon, here) then I think we had all better be generally as true to the bylaws of this organization as we would like the general public to think of us as being.
I myself did complain bitterly quite recently over a type of advertising which it had never occurred to me I would find in my own column. But I did this openly, and without profanity or rancor. While I do still find these pop-up style ads (what is their technical term?) corrosive to the ideas I intend to get across, and do admit I may not have gleaned everything I should out of an agreement clause we all must agree to, I will continue to support our site as tho' it reflected on the character of us all. That includes my own part here.
We are to be mindful how our impact has reached others before. In any recent quarrel, there was a lull of the thorough discussion of those ideas put forth. If we are not careful of ruining one another's reputation, much less in viewing ourselves as superior via any one person's effort or this general use, then it is to this our public might refer. We must watch that the general reputation here isn't scarred for the long haul due to the quarrels of the past.
To be fair, I've studied some copyright law before myself. I, however, found it misleading, in that there are so many terms and clauses that seem nearly if not almost completely contradictory as to cause a greater confusion for a reader not well versed in legalese.
As a modern collage artist, whose work had been in a number of shows, I was soon dismayed to find I couldn't fathom all of what I had to learn.
Perhaps there is someone here with a degree in this subject, or with prior knowledge to afford us all a better idea of what is real?
Even online, I found there to be many conflicting viewpoints on copyright law or what must be obeyed. The people writing of this issue may well have meant their observations in a tone of good faith. That does not make their answers (or personal conjecture) truly cogent for this situation. As too many cooks spoil the broth, perhaps someone with authority here at OS could make a general page for one and all to freely access at will, with copies freely available, that each might study and then proceed with care.
As to Scanner's blogging, I make no pretense as to knowing the facts, being timed out for the most part due to illness. Our shared blame could be in not simply drawing aside our dear friend here and helping him to see what was at stake to his reputation. Where blame is put, defenses soon arise. This blocks progress. And it can create more problems than it may correct
Next time, I vote we take care of the situation by means of factual info with the uses of tact. After all, did Scanner not provide us before with his own commentary? I can tell by the style this has generally been his choice. Let's stop quarreling, then, and start with a fresh perspective. All of us. I look to staff to clear this up via their clarity for us all.
First, I want to thank everyone for keeping it sane. I appreciate that.
Kate: drawing the line is pretty easy, actually. We have the right to say reprehensible things. First Amendment, baby! We don't have the right to pass off others' work as our own.
CrazeCzar: oh sure, there were plenty of testicles swinging on my side of the fight, but most of the staunchest fighters were wimmin, and they took the brunt of some real vile verbal arrows. I post in solidarity.
I do not believe in degrees in this instance. I'd be hard pressed to agree that situational ethics is a moral response in any but the most dire life and death situations.
Quite simply, the person in question accused of plagiarism printed matter that was written by someone else, and for all intents and purposes, intended that they be ascribed to him. That is plagiarism. That's black and white, there's a wrong side and a right side.
The whole dust up could have been avoided, or died down quickly with honor and respect restored if he had simply acknowledged it and said something to the effect of "my bad, I should have credited the sources and I will do so in the future, thanks for pointing it out."
It would have ended (largely) at that moment.
Instead he said he did not plagiarize when it was demonstrated over and again that he in fact did. His response was "Fuck you." He has a right to say that, of course, notwithstanding a general prohibition in the Terms of Service to "not be that guy." But he owned that response by making it, and thus owns part of the reaction to it.
The OS TOS says
You agree that you will not use the Service or the Site to post, transmit, or share User Content that you did not create or that you do not have permission to post. You affirm that you own or have all intellectual property rights (including without limitation copyright and trademark rights), licenses, and permissions to the User Content you provide that are needed to use and to authorize Salon to use that User Content in the manner described in these TOS.
That is simple to understand.
The phrase "that you did not create" couldn't be simpler. He claims to have written the words, others have demonstrated that it was written verbatim by someone else.
So, then the second clause might come into effect. "...[O]r that you do not have permission to post."
Wikipedia can be used in a similar way that creative commons for photography can be used. You can use it in your research and in your writing. BUT YOU MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE WORDS YOU USE ARE NOT YOUR OWN. (Excuse me for raising my voice.) Someone else wrote those words on Wiki. Simply say it. "The preceding is from Wikipedia and can be found [here]."
Words on other sites, that have copyright restrictions are a different matter. Unless you can provide as a defense the premise of Fair Use as found in the US Code section 17 that explains how Fair Use can be implemented. Fair Use is simply the method by which copyrighted material can be used by someone other than the copyright holder. Fair Use is NOT a means by which you can paste something and pass it off as your own. Fair Use, further, is a defense to be used in a court of law, it is not permission. Fair Use issues are decided in court when the copyright holder objects and brings suit, and they are decided on a case by case basis because the statute is intentionally vague. Lose on a Fair Use case and you will be paying big bucks.
Listen to the professional teachers on this site. Not to how they say it, but as to what the substance of their comments are. They say that we need to teach our kids the right and wrong on this issue. There is never a defense for plagiarism. Never. It is theft. There are no degrees.
To all: I think a lot of blame is being heaped upon those who point out plagiarism and the way they go about it (comments? PMs?) but I think that blame is misplaced. Yes, we could all do to be a little more civil (didn't you see my previous post on manners?), but a large part of this specific problem was Scanner's reaction. He responded with a rousing "fuck you" to those who pointed out that he had copied his post from another source, and was relentless with condemning them for... for what, exactly? For being harpies, I think. That was my impression.
Then he posted an "apology," where he sort of apologized to everyone else EXCEPT the three women he had called "fishy smelling cootchy skanks" or something in a post that he pulled down. This whole affair could have been much quieter and handled much better, but it wasn't the fault of those who pointed out the infraction. Let's make sure we're clear on that.
2. The nastiness of some of the comments, even without the plagiarism scandal, can be embarrassing. You can disagree with the content of a post without belittling the author. What's so hard about that?
It wasn't just stuff from Wikipedia, I really wish the focus would change to the more egregious examples of plagiarism that were identified. There was another, clearly copyrighted article he used from a web site called straightdope.com. Whole paragraphs from that one, and then there was also parts from another post scanner wrote called "2,750 yr. old stash found - no papers. Material for that post he lifted from an article written a few years ago on a Canadian national news site, also clearly copyrighted and protected.
IF standing up for what is right results in me being labelled one of the "stanky fishy smelling cootchie bitches" (says scanner) then so be it.
I think that's the crux of the whole issue, Billy.
This thing was unnecessary, if the people involved at first had just tried to not assume the worst about each other and then go hunting with sharp knives for revenge. I apologize to anyone who thinks that I mean this to support either side in the mess. I think everyone made mistakes in judgement and resorted to grade school behavior. My problem is that I have valued friends on both sides and I would rather not lose any of them if possible. I've likely cut my own throat for weighing in here. I will say that in the case of an error of ignorance or in the proper attribution of others work that not springing for the jugular would do much more good than making accusations about intent. Likewise, name calling and hurtful things do no good and often do permanent damage in relationships even those as ethereal as the online variety.
What is posted here would have been much better than the ugliness that followed the original post. I have probably cost myself some valued friends with this comment. I will also add again that I will not and have not ever intentionally tried to take the work of any other writer as my own. I do not condone it and will not ever condone that.
All right, folks, I actually need to head out for the afternoon. I may be back on later tonight, but definitely tomorrow morning. If there's any verbal wrassling, please try to keep it civil.
Lord of the Flies
“Why it’s about stoppin’ them plague-erists from what runinin’ the internets, that’s wot!”
Then he looked at me as if I were stupid so I, who have actual reading comprehension skills, translated what this post really says: “Dear Editors, You people are morons. You don’t know what plagiarism is. You don’t know how to run a web site. You even need your own TOS copied back to you! What you really need is a genuine university writing project participant to save the day and protect the integrity of Open Salon. You can thank me later!”
Festus still looked a tad doubtful so I explained, “See, man, it’s all about self-aggrandizement and impugning character to make your own seem better. Nothing to do with plagiarism at all!”
“I dunno, Harry,” scoffed my reluctant friend. “He mights got a point there.”
“How the fuck is that!”
“I done seen the cover before.”
“Oh…touché.”
So can we get off our plagiarism crosses now and stop pretending we’re saving the internet or the rain forests or whatever the fuck. This is not fooling anyone.
And why hasn't anyone tried to sell me shoes yet?
Actually, it really IS about plagiarism. Really, I swear.
There are blogs here that I will no longer visit because they don't seem to want to shut up about it and I don't really come here for this particular discussion. I come here because there are some damned good writers and I like to write from time to time myself. Hearing what some respectable, good writers have to say about my efforts is encouraging and helps me shape my own inner critic. I'd like to see us get back to encouraging one another.
In case anyone missed any of my prior comments about plagiarism: it's illegal and it sucks. I know I said a lot more before, but that is all I can say now. More is a waste of words, you've said it all succinctly. Thanks.
How do you feel about plagiarism on Open Salon?
a. Let's kill the plagiarererer!
b. It's wrong, but people who disagree with me overreacted.
c. It's okay if your sob story is good enough, but people who disagree with me overreacted.
d. I just set my hair on fire to make the conversation about me!
e. All of the above.
If you answered "e" - please be sure to sue someone for loss of life, property, pubic hair and the ability to get a date.
May The Force be with you.
(thumbified - Clique, Clique BOOM!)
I'm sorry this thing came down as it did. It's saddened me, as I've no doubt injured some cyber-friendships, and I know it has taken a heavy toll with others in this community. And it is a community, and that is part of the problem. It's also one of the attractions of this place.
As a community, I think we've learned a good lesson about the importance of integrity with our writing, and maybe even about how we behave toward each other. Ours is a rich and varied stew of talents and personalities. I can't imagine not being a part of it. (r)
I do want to point out, though (because well, we all have to point something out, don't we?) that while you and others keep insisting that this is about plagiarism, why does everyone then go on to say something like what you said in a comment here:
"a large part of this specific problem was Scanner's reaction."
Now it's no longer about where he got his info and whether he was researching and compiling facts about the song or if he was copying and pasting... now it's about his reaction, which is certainly not plagiarism. I'm sure he didn't copy "smelly coochie bitches" from anyone. He's allowed to say "smelly coochie bitches" all he wants, if people don't like it, they don't have to read it, ya know?
Another thing that takes away from the heart of the issue is when people start saying this had to do with men vs. women. Yes, it happened to be women he lashed out against (I think they were probably the most vocal, but I can't attest because I didn't read the original comment string) but men can be smelly bitches, too. And even if he is being harsher on the women, that's not plagiarism, either.
If it's sincerely about The Big P, then we can let the editors enforce their rules (maybe your letter will call attention to the issue) and we can all decide for ourselves if we want to read scanner's blog or not.
(My little point; sorry, shaggy, that it isn't pertinent to your post.)
It was not the women who said "stupid, smelly asshole men", even after it was said to them...
The main defense of Scanner and the people who defend his plagiarism and his immediate vile reactions, is that it was the WAY the plagiarism was made known that is the real problem. In others words, the plagiarism was OK, it's just the people who pointed it out who are at fault. The old "the best defense is a good offense mentality."
You, and they, can't have it both ways. In his original post, the comments made by the people who noted the plagiarism were very mild until he reacted with extreme nastiness. He then created a post with a title calling people out by name with their various body parts. There is no doubt in my mind that he would NEVER have treat a man, or men, in that matter.
I don't want to be on a site where people feel free to post titles calling specific people disgusting names. And it's kind of hard not to read it when it's the title of a post. And full disclosure: I have been the target of several posts with titles calling me vile names too.
http://open.salon.com/blog/dselke_bouffard/2010/03/23/self-plagairism-_a_must_read
What possible reason would Bonnie, Julie and Ablonde have to want you out of here? You and all your friends constantly spew conspiracy theories and yet not once has any reason ever been offered. So what is the reason? A lot of people here have known you and others were plagiarizing for a long time but nobody did anything about it.
What happened is that your cheating was so flagrant that someone checked it out and decided to call you on it, others saw it and joined in. If that's a conspiracy in your book then you need to look up the meaning of the word.
People who plagiarize accidentally do NOT do it regularly, nor do they react with the kind of venom that you did. It seems that you still don't get it, do you? You are looking more and more foolish as you try to make it about everybody else. You are seizing on details that are utterly meaningless such as I said that you and Bonnie had no issues. So what? You had a fight. That hardly means she was "after" you. It does mean tho, that you have that kind of mentality. You and your friends have tried everything in the book to smear the people who caught you. You have tried to make it about them, and me, when YOU, and only YOU, were the one who stole. Until you face that, your reputation isn't going to improve around here.
After I read it (http://open.salon.com/blog/dselke_bouffard/2010/03/23/self-plagairism-_a_must_read) at first I despaired. But then an idea flashed in my mind, a way to make lemonade out of these lemons.
Goodness! I am considering going back to school for my JD, because then I can be kept busy suing myself. The more I write and crosspost the busier I'll be. I won't have to look for any clients. All the lawsuits will have to be settled out of court, it would be tough trying defend and prosecute myself at the same time.
Continue to whack away if you wish, but that train has left the station and ran over the dead horse you are beating.
Ablonde, I no longer acknowledge you, your just a ghost with some flabby tits. I Band Thee! Hah!
Tell the other two idoits that I Band them too! hah!
If it is true, then nearly everyone here is "plagiarizing" themselves. I'm also not giving credence to the argument that people shouldn't post work here that has appeared elsewhere as their own because people here think that it is written strictly for OS. I think it is polite to tell people that, but it is no way "plagiarizing" not to do so.
Now THIS is a writer's site. I see a lot of shows coming from this.
Note especially that one of the instances she mentions that permits it is that the audience is deemed to be different in each venue in order to get the information (or blog) to respective audiences.
"I do want to point out, though (because well, we all have to point something out, don't we?) that while you and others keep insisting that this is about plagiarism, why does everyone then go on to say something like what you said in a comment here:
'a large part of this specific problem was Scanner's reaction.'
Now it's no longer about where he got his info and whether he was researching and compiling facts about the song or if he was copying and pasting... now it's about his reaction, which is certainly not plagiarism."
If I say my only concern is plagiarism and creative integrity, then why would I make a statement like this? Well, let me reiterate: my main concern is plagiarism and creative integrity. Scanner and I run in different circles here on OS: I've come across a handful of his posts, and he's probably come across a handful of mine, but we're not friends or enemies or frienemies or what have you. I've also never heard of or read anything by Bonnie, and I have only passing familiarity with the other main players in this drama. Like I said, my concern here is, first and foremost, plagiarism.
Yet it impossible to ignore the fracas that ensued or Scanner's (and others') pivotal role in fanning those flames, especially when there were so many comments made that suggested the problem lay in the way the accusations of plagiarism were made. To borrow and slightly alter Cartouche's metaphor, the troublemakers aren't the people who point out that you've stolen a bike (although they can certain exacerbate the problem), the troublemaker is the bicycle thief. If the thief fights back when confronted with his larceny, well, that just makes things worse.
Which leads to my next point. Scanner, I perhaps could have given you a bit more benefit of the doubt, but that's difficult when you squander that benefit with ugly and childish attacks. Julie and Ablonde (and others) have also provided a fair amount of evidence of a history of plagiarism, which was ignored in favor of these attacks. Perhaps they have some sort of vendetta against you, like you claim. It's possible, but it's not really the issue.
It's also important to note that "cut and paste" plagiarism is but one kind of plagiarism. Going through with a thesaurus and changing a couple of words but keeping the structure of the original idea in place is also plagiarism. This plagiarism actually tends to be dealt with more severely, since it is often done with the intent of obscuring the original theft.
Perhaps nothing will come of any of this. Perhaps the editors are too busy, or perhaps they don't care. Like Kierkegaard struggling to infer the intentions of God, the Editors' silence on this matter leaves us with only our own interpretations. If I steal a bicycle and God doesn't punish me, does God care? Does he condone my theft? We are left to construe morality as we see fit, and I, for one, find the world to be a better place when less bicycles are stolen.
Great post, nicely spoken too.
First, the issue that cross-posting blog articles rises to plagiarism is completely silly. As bbd indicated above, many authors use this approach to disseminate the information written in their posts to different audiences. In many cases, authors notify their readers that the article has been posted elsewhere. I know several bloggers, including Glenn Greenwald and myself, who cross-post here and at OpEdNews.
Second, I also find it ridiculous that taking one or two paragraphs from one paper for another one based on your own work amounts to plagiarism. When you prepare different papers on the same topic, say a statistical distribution or model, there aren’t twenty ways to describe the so-called distribution or model in the background section. I and many researchers in my area sometimes reproduce some (minor) parts of previous papers, when it is needed. When we review (or read) academic papers, we all understand why this done. In fact, this falls into the guidelines described in section 4.3 bbd referred to above (I do not believe there is a debate on this issue). Here, we’re not talking about preparing the same exact paper with two different titles and submit it to distinct journals.
"Jack: I'm glad you were able to read my heavily-veiled subtext that we all de-friend Scanner." (Slanty bold added for emphasis)
"Heavily-veiled subtext," as in "What the heck are you talking about, Jack? I said nothing even remotely like that!"
So Scanner, you might think I'm out to get you, but I'm not. I don't have a very high opinion of you at this point, but that hardly translates into a crusade.
interesting squabble over the shifting definitions of original work. i skimmed shaggy's posts on the topic, but i generally concur with his points.
i has a similar experience with a blogger who cut and pasted wikipedia info without attribution. turns out she was an attorney. she thanked me, but she was obviously irritated and blocked me from reading her blog...
as some commentators suggested, the difference between blogging and, say, writing a term paper is not very clear. this is further complicated by the fact that an individual blogger's writing skill set and training can vary drastically. thus responses to an "offender" might be read by some as an intellectual conceit.
last, as an anthropologist i am compelled to note that the notion that an individual can own an idea is a curious western development. it's an odd idea, for example, for the average african (i do research in ghana). moreover, this odd notion has lead to all sorts problems including the corporate takeover of food production.
all that to say i would caution folks against taking "our" peculiar notion of intellectual property as some sort of sacred principle ordained by the Gods. GI
I have numerous times received emails containing 'cute' stories and quotes, photos, etc, that are not attributed to original authors, have been passed around the 'net a number of times, under various subject headers. I don't pretend to assuage any guilt and/or blame (I've been gone a few days, I'm not even aware of this particular fire storm yet) but it's at least a possibility that some incidences of plagiarism are indeed innocent.
There is also a certain style of communication wherein the speaker will begin "So, this guy comes up and says to me..", in effect telling a joke, but as though it happened to him. Perhaps some incidences of plagiarism could even be attributed to that.
Not making excuses here, just thinking out loud of possible reasons :).
R