Whoa, am I psychic?

[Rodney]

So then let's do a quick back of the envelope… 7 years, 52 weeks, 15 articles, 1000 words, and only 200 plagiarized… that means, as far as we know, .0037% of the content isn’t his own.

As far as we know . . .

 

[monoman]

I too was surprised at the reaction of some people here to Randi’s reply – though I should say that I have a sneaking admiration and envy for their indignation.

It’s hard for me to relate because I don’t write for a living. I read Randi’s reply and thought fair enough – I wish I was Hawkeye!

May be it’s to do with the fact that I used to be an analyst programmer where plagiarism is rife (though of course not actively changing credit in comments),.

I once worked for a company where a lad took a load of my programs and changed my name to his at the top. (He was applying for another job). I found out but didn’t say a word to him because he was such a useless coder & tool that we all wanted to see the back of him!

I have to say, it was a tough call because I was very proud of some of those if/thens, gotos, calls and cases.

 

[Rodney]

I hope he apologizes also.

He didn't. Instead, in this week's Swift, he claims an "innocent error."

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Teapot tempests and non-issues.

I think this is a tempest in a teapot. The TOS are very clear:

Copyright


Any post or article published on the JREF forum by a Member is the copyright of
the Member and may not be reproduced, copied or otherwise re-published without
the express permission of the Member. By posting on the Forum a Member grants the JREF a non-exclusive licence to publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity. The James Randi
Educational Foundation is the copyright holder of the JREF Forum.

My bold. It's very clear - this is the price of posting on someone's forum. This is also a very standard TOS for most Internet forums and blogs. Those who are upset over the matter should revisit the TOS page. You all agreed to the TOS when you signed up.

Out of all the members crying foul, only one bothered to look up the TOS first. The rest jumped to a conclusion. Granted, he should have cited Hawkeye as the source, but really he doesn't have to do so.

 

[Rodney]

I think this is a tempest in a teapot.

I disagree. If you are correct, Randi is free to lift any Forum posts and use them in his commentary without attribution. That would be unethical, even if there were no explicit prohibition against it. But there is: "Any post or article published on the JREF forum by a Member is the copyright of the Member and may not be reproduced, copied or otherwise re-published without the express permission of the Member."

Randi never asked for permission to use Hawkeye's post in his commentary nor did he credit her until she e-mailed him about it.

 

[Cleon]

I disagree.

Fortunately, nobody cares.

Randi never asked for permission to use Hawkeye's post in his commentary nor did he credit her until she e-mailed him about it.

Yes. It was a screw-up. People make mistakes. Long white beard or no, Randi is not God. He made a boo-boo, he owned up to it. It happens. If he was the Evil Plagiarist you'd like to think he is, he would've just ignored it and gone on his way.

Get over it.

 

[fls]

I think this is a tempest in a teapot. The TOS are very clear:

Copyright


Any post or article published on the JREF forum by a Member is the copyright of
the Member and may not be reproduced, copied or otherwise re-published without
the express permission of the Member. By posting on the Forum a Member grants the JREF a non-exclusive licence to publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity. The James Randi
Educational Foundation is the copyright holder of the JREF Forum.

Out of all the members crying foul, only one bothered to look up the TOS first. The rest jumped to a conclusion. Granted, he should have cited Hawkeye as the source, but really he doesn't have to do so.

I agree that this is a tempest in a teapot. However, the paragraph you quoted states that the JREF can reproduce their work, not reproduce it without attribution, which is the point under contention. It doesn't really help us one way or the other.

What also strikes me, is that if you takes Hawkeye's post and substitute "Sylvia" for "Randi" (and vice versa) and "psychic predictions" for "SWIFT", it looks very much like Sylvia and her supporters' responses to criticisms about the Shawn Hornbeck case.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Fortunately, nobody cares.

Translation: I can't refute your analysis, so I'll go with an ad hom.

Yes. It was a screw-up. People make mistakes. Long white beard or no, Randi is not God. He made a boo-boo, he owned up to it. It happens. If he was the Evil Plagiarist you'd like to think he is, he would've just ignored it and gone on his way.

Cleon, try t-h-i-n-k-i-n-g. When caught red-handed in plagiarizing Hawkeye's post, Randi had three basic choices: (1) Pay Hawkeye the million bucks for being psychic; (2) Come clean and apologize for what he ridiculed Sylvia Browne for doing; (3) Claim it was somehow an innocent error and tell Forum members to give him a break. I would suggest that (3) is less honourable than (2), because his explanation of how the error happened doesn't ring true.

Get over it.

If we find no evidence that Randi has ever previously plagiarized, I'll do that. But, if we do find such evidence, what will your reaction be?

 

[thaiboxerken]

He did 'come clean'

What's the big deal?

 

[Cleon]

Translation: I can't refute your analysis, so I'll go with an ad hom.

No, not quite. Try "Rodney is alone on his quest to use this to paint Randi in the worst light imaginable. It's silly, but he's too wrapped up in himself to pick up on it."

Cleon, try t-h-i-n-k-i-n-g.

I do. I think you're full of crap.

When caught red-handed in plagiarizing Hawkeye's post,

This is funny. I picture a cackling Randi thinking to himself, "I can steal this post from a forum user, and nobody can stop me! Mwahahahaha!"

"Caught red-handed." Hilarious.

Randi had three basic choices: (1) Pay Hawkeye the million bucks for being psychic; (2) Come clean and apologize for what he ridiculed Sylvia Browne for doing; (3) Claim it was somehow an innocent error and tell Forum members to give him a break. I would suggest that (3) is less honourable than (2), because his explanation of how the error happened doesn't ring true.

So you've just decided that his explanation isn't true--based on, well, nothing. See my first point.

He owned up to it, publicly, and it still isn't good enough for you. Which just goes to show you're fishing.

If we find no evidence that Randi has ever previously plagiarized, I'll do that. But, if we do find such evidence, what will your reaction be?

A) Who is this "we" you're speaking of? As far as I can tell, everyone else here seems to think this was simply a mistake on Randi's part, including the one whose words were so cruelly stolen. The only person out to "expose" Randi as some scheming plagiarist is you.

B) Randi is 78, and his career has spanned over half a century, resulting in worldwide fame as both a skeptic and one of the world's premier stage magicians. During this time, he has met literally tens of thousands of people from all over the world, ranging from the famous to the mundane. He has written over half a dozen books, innumerable articles for various publications, given countless speeches, talks, and interviews, and has compiled a weekly newsletter for a number of years.
In short--if you don't find any examples of him inadvertantly using words someone else has written, I would be really, really surprised.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

It's becoming one of these:



Randi made a bad decision, owned up to it, and apologized. The world did not shudder on its axis and topple because Randi [rule8] up. This is an internet forum, not a story in the New York Times. Yes, I know it still makes it wrong and blah, blah, blah, but move on for chrissake!

 

[baron]

Randi is 78, and his career has spanned over half a century, resulting in worldwide fame as both a skeptic and one of the world's premier stage magicians. During this time, he has met literally tens of thousands of people from all over the world, ranging from the famous to the mundane. He has written over half a dozen books, innumerable articles for various publications, given countless speeches, talks, and interviews, and has compiled a weekly newsletter for a number of years.
In short--if you don't find any examples of him inadvertantly using words someone else has written, I would be really, really surprised.

I walk past thousands of people a day but when I bump into one I apologise.

 

[kittynh]

This is how "someone" dealt with a situation like this...

I'm an artist. Just look at the avatars here to see how much "copywrite" means to the average person when it comes to ART. We all seem to know it when it comes to words, but art. Hey, I have Snoopy! So I"m guilty too.

Here's the story...let's just call it a story....

This artist goes to a big fundraising walk a thon for the local humane society. Everyone is wearing tshirts with HER artwork on them. Wow, because she doesnt' remember giving them permission to use her artwork. In fact, while she has donated to this great cause...she has never drawn anything for the Humane Society to use. Imagine, hundreds of people wearing YOUR work. Only looking closely at a tshirt, no signature even.

The artist goes home feeling, well betrayed, angry, horribly upset. But she contacts the Humane Society the next day. The Humane Society says, "Oh my gosh! We "forgot" to contact you! We knew you were a supporter and just simply were so rushed for time we didn't contact you!" They felt awful. But they also weren't too upset because as they put it, "well, we knew you would say 'yes'".

The artist thinks. Of course she would have said "yes". And the tshirts were a BIG hit. They raised a lot of money (they were sold, and if I do say so the drawing was so cute that of course anyone would want to buy one) Next newsletter from the Humane Society had a nice thank you.

Artist thinks, "this is my profession" so she feels it perhaps more than if this were just a "hobby". But she also thinks, "well, a lot of people saw my work, even without a signature, and a lot of people are enjoying it". Was it wrong, yes. Was it a mistake, yes. Did the artist want them to be REALLY REALLY sorry, yes. But then again, it's the HUMANE SOCIETY!! And as such, yes, much can be forgiven, because even those kept to the highest standards, and doing the most good (as I feel Humane Societies do) make mistakes. When you are bottle feeding orphaned kittens until 2 am, things happen.

Simple apology is always classy. Simple gracious acceptance of apology is also good. People are human, and an acceptance of the humanity and the human failings of all of us, no matter who we are, is a good way to sleep well at night.

Awfully cute tshirt though, too bad about the signature missing...

 

[kittynh]

I walk past thousands of people a day but when I bump into one I apologise.

well, he did.

and how did you draw your avatar?

(should be noted I checked with the estate of Charles Shultz and mine is now an approved use YEAH!!!)

 

[fls]

I agree this is a minor incident. So I don't understand why we are being told to move on, calm down, and get over it. I haven't seen anyone here make any more of it than it is - i.e. no one is saying "Randi is a liar" or "Randi is a plagarist" because of this incident. The strongest emotion expressed seems to have been mild disappointment.

And now you're jumping all over Rodney for doing exactly what he should be doing on a skeptic forum. I've been trying to demonstrate to him skepticism means that you apply the same standards to stuff that you do support as you apply to the stuff you don't support. He pointed out, quite correctly, that just because this is the only time he has been caught, doesn't mean that this is the only time Randi has borrowed someone else's words. (This is not meant to be an accusation in any way, shape or form, just a recognition of what we can infer from various kinds of evidence.) And he also pointed out that Randi did not apologize, which could also be considered valid if you define an apology as "admitting to an error and expressing regret for that error" rather than "admitting to an error".

But he is now getting a first hand demonstration that it is not okay to be skeptical if we are talking about somebody we believe in. Thanks a lot guys! You've just un-done months of hard work on my part!

(That last bit is very much tongue-in-cheek)

And just so you know, my avatar is a picture of me, taken by myself. I would feel guilty if I used copyrighted material without attribution and the permission of the copyright owner, even for as trivial a matter as an avatar. Although, I'm not entirely sure how one goes about adding an attribution to an avatar.

 

[Cleon]

You know what? **** it. Vamp's right, it's beating a dead horse, and it's a minor incident not worth getting riled up about.

 

[baron]

well, he did.

I didn't see any apology, although please correct me if I missed it.

I don't see this as a big deal. As I said, it just doesn't sit well with me.

and how did you draw your avatar?

(should be noted I checked with the estate of Charles Shultz and mine is now an approved use YEAH!!!)

Well, mine is approved for use too, on account that I painted it. It's entitled "Timothy" and it's currently being used by Corel (with my permission) for the new Corel Painter X promo.

My apologies if you were simply asking; I sometimes assume the worst and your previous post on artists' rights suggested you were disputing my right to show the artwork.

 

[kittynh]

really no, I rather thought your avatar looked self done, and I was wondering if you had done the work yourself.

I see a lot of self made avatars on the forum now, and it's great.

It's really easy usually to get permission to use an avatar, you simply call or email. Permission is usually granted, if you ask!

the thinking from the Snoopy people seems to be, if you don't know who drew Snoopy, you must be living under a rock!

But do not adjust Snoopy without permission, or show him doing something NOT in compliance with the Snoopy/Peanuts image!

 

[baron]

really no, I rather thought your avatar looked self done, and I was wondering if you had done the work yourself.

OK, no probs

But do not adjust Snoopy without permission...

Or indeed any dog

 

[Cleon]

"Snoopy! Not on the floor! Bad dog!"

"Snoopy! What are you doing to Woodstock?!!?!?!"