For Plagiarists, The Internet Is A Double-Edged Sword

You may also like...

25 Responses

  1. Matthew Cline says:

    It seems some of my views that I passed onto to one of my staff to post on the site have used other sources that should not have been included.

    I parse it as meaning "I voiced an opinion which a staffer misinterpreted as being an instruction to plagiarize".

  2. TJIC says:

    > I parse it as meaning "I voiced an opinion which a staffer misinterpreted as being an instruction to plagiarize".

    I parsed it as "I voiced an opinion of the movie and told a staffer to 'flesh it out' into an article…and the staffer searched out a full review and plagiarized it".

  3. Damon says:

    In other words: I didn't do it / I'm not responsible. Mistakes were made….

    Utter BS…

  4. I miss Judith Griggs, back when plagiarism was not just open, but brazen, and non-apologizes were long, self-serving, and comically ham-fisted.

    Movie Junkies seems to be saying, "Yes, we realize we have plagiarized, but are not so concerned about it that we'll do our own internal review or anything. We're pretty sure it will all just blow over."

    And, in an unrelated topic, did anybody see those pictures of the Titanic in National Geographic this month? I was struck by the pile of deck chairs visible on one section of the ship, looking for all the world to have not been re-arranged in any way.

  5. Andrew says:

    In the annals of recently unveiled plagiarists, Movie Junkies has nothing on Daria Novak, who has adopted the "I did nothing wrong, I just didn't want to inconvenience you with my copious footnotes" defense.

  6. EH says:

    I don't know if you've checked lately, but the Cooks Source site…as well as the @cookssource Twitter account…are all vamoosed.

  7. Laura K says:

    Oh my GOD it's SOOO Henry II: "Arrgh! Will nobody rid me of this troublesome deadline? (Either through wholeslale slaughter of an archbishop and/or plagarism, y'know, whatever you can do first?)"

  8. SPQR says:

    I didn't know that Joe Biden did movie reviews under a pseudonym.

  9. It seems that

    "I write for a modestly-trafficked blog that frequently discusses issues regarding [X]. I write to request a comment on a report regarding your conduct."

    seems to be the Popehat version of:

    "I'm Chris Hansen from NBC. Would you like to tell us what you're doing here?"

  10. Ken says:

    It seems that

    "I write for a modestly-trafficked blog that frequently discusses issues regarding [X]. I write to request a comment on a report regarding your conduct."

    seems to be the Popehat version of:

    "I'm Chris Hansen from NBC. Would you like to tell us what you're doing here?"

    This is my favorite comment in — well, it's top five material.

  11. KronWeld says:

    Speaking of Judith Griggs, I found this article where it mentions that Monica Gaudio did not publish all of Judith's e-mail do to a copy right notice on the e-mail. First time I hear about that.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you-20/201011/are-cooks-source-magazine-and-judith-griggs-innocent

  12. KronWeld says:

    … First time I heard about that. … My kingdom for a preview button! Or an edit button.

  13. Runanide says:

    Come on, Ken. Fry bigger fish.

  14. @Ken Thanks, you're too kind!

  15. Ken says:

    @Runanide: Eh. I hate plagiarists. And she's a marketeer too.

  16. jb says:

    I read "some of my views" as "some of my reviews," as in "I got these reviews from somewhere, told my staffer to post them, and oops they were plagiarized" and Ms. Schalin is too lazy to type the entire word. Perhaps if someone else somewhere typed the whole word she would be able to copy and paste it.

  17. Runanide says:

    @Ken: Yeah, but she's obviously an idiot and she said sorry and kissed your butt. It comes off like picking on the weak kid on the playground. And anyway, our entire profession has a few things to learn about plagiarism.

  18. Ken says:

    @Runanide: Except that it was a lulling apology, not a general apology, it was dishonest, and the facts show that she was engaged in serial plagiarism.

  19. EH says:

    And we see that the site is now suddenly down for "scheduled maintenance!"

    "DUDE WE SCHEDULED THIS LIKE HOURS AGO"

  20. Dan h says:

    I first realized this when a son of mine wrote a paper for school. Some of it seemed like it was truly NOT his writing. So a quick google of a specific sentence and — busted. The internet truly works both ways.

  21. John David Galt says:

    You've only just scratched the surface of plagiarism controversies; indeed, I'd be surprised if you haven't made it a keyword/category by this time next year.

    Several of my college profs use specialized software or web sites designed to catch plagiarism in students' written assignments. They don't tell students any more than that, which means it is quite possible for original work to fall foul of the test, with no feedback as to why, and no opportunity for the student to run his work through the testing program for himself before submitting it. For sheer lack of due process, this rivals the no-fly list.

    This is not intended to denigrate or trivialize the accusation of plagiarism that started this thread. Plagiarism is wrong and those responsible deserve whatever public embarrassment they get (though I'm not at all sure it justifies a law, at least if there aren't any measurable damages). But no one should stand to lose his career, or even a college education, without pretty good proof.

  22. Tracey says:

    There's another instance of blog plagiarism reported this month. Well trafficked blog Amalah.com seems to have been literally ripped off by Kristin Ruiz of OurOrdinaryLife.com, going so far as to juts change the sex of the kids and ripping off entire pregnancy experiences. Her claims of innocent happening seem to be wrapped around "I'm a young 27, inexperienced…" What she left out is stupid.

  23. John Beaty says:

    JDG,

    Wait, are you saying that not knowing HOW plagiarism will be found is inappropriate? THat's kind of like saying that police should release details of how they conduct investigations so that criminals can verify that they don't accidentally get arrested.
    I think anyone who plagiarizes knows what they're doing. As do you.

  24. AlphaCentauri says:

    If you're going to plagiarize, it's smarter to block archive.org from crawling your site.

  25. Antaeus Feldspar says:

    John Beaty, I think you're missing JDG's point. Say the professors are using the anti-plagiarism software DetectAPlage. Well, if DetectAPlage is perfect software, then it will have no false positives and as few false negatives as can be arranged by giving the software a wide base of texts to compare against. And if the software is perfect, then no student has anything to worry about.

    But who says the software is perfect? Who says that the professor read all the directions for using the software perfectly? In other words, what happens when the software says "this is plagiarized" and it's a false positive? Do we tell the student "no, not possible, the software must be perfect and therefore you must be a plagiarist because the software says you are"? Suppose the fault is actually the professor's, because the professor didn't read the instructions that say "if the student quotes appropriately from a cited source, mark the quotation so that the software doesn't think it's uncited plagiarism". What do you tell the student? Do you tell him, "Well, it's more important that we can catch real plagiarists than that you should be cleared of a false accusation of plagiarism, so you don't get to find out why the software thought you were plagiarizing"?

    As someone who was once accused of plagiarism simply because I did too well with a paper that I slacked off on until the last minute and then pulled together in a caffeine-and-ELO-fueled all-nighter, I think it's a bad idea to say "the process by which students are accused of a wrongdoing that could severely damage them academically should remain secret."