Whoa, am I psychic?

[BillyJoe]

Which he did - have you not read this weeks SWIFT? As far as I can see he's given the matter as much prominence as he could.

Well, lets analyse it:

Last week, rushing to get SWIFT together, I downloaded, edited, vetted, stored, juggled, and otherwise handled the huge amount of text that I have to organize in order to produce this page every week.

Setting the scene - fair enough.

In the process, I inadvertently failed to credit a correspondent, Chris Calvey, with some text that quite well described what I had to say about a certain item.

Sorry, but this is not correct.
He didn't just fail to credit the text. As I said before he "lifted the posts, changed a couple of words, added a bit of padding and changed certain third person pronouns into first person pronouns so as to pass the whole thing off as his own." If he had intended but "inadvertently failed" to credit the text, why would he make all the changes that made it look like he wrote it himself.

Now, the Forum watchdogs have begun barking at this innocent error.

I'm trying to see how this was an "innocent error". He did not credit the text. He changed it to look like it was his own. It is difficult ot see this as innocent. Certainly it doesn't deserve concerned forumites being referred to as barking watchdogs.

Despite my publishing this earnest effort to explain myself...

Here is his letter to Hawkeye (which was his earnest effort ot explain himself) posted in this thread:

Chris: I admit, I shamelessly took your comments and dropped them in as
part of SWIFT, simply because they exactly reflected my observations. I
could have changed the wording, but getting SWIFT together each week - amid
all the other duties that keep me here at least 60 hours a week - calls for
some corner-cutting every now and then. Mea culpa...

It's 9:08 on Saturday morning, I've been here since 7:30 or so, and I'll be
here until late today... This is what I do, I do it for as many hours as I
can, and I love it, but I err occasionally as I did by stealing your
comments so blatantly.

(If you want to use this on the Forum, or anywhere else, you're of course
free to do so. We have few secrets here, except for a couple of jazzy
card-tricks...!)

James Randi.

Well, he goes half way:

"I shamelessly took your comments and dropped them in as part of SWIFT, simply because they exactly reflected my observations" should have been "I shamelessly stole your comments and passed then off as my own because they exactly reflected my own observations" and we must take his word for it that Randi was thinking the exact same thing as Hawkeye.
"I could have changed the wording" should have been "I could have changed the wording so that your text was no longer recognisable in it" (except how is this an apology rather than an admission that he did failed to pull it off)
"I err occasionally as I did by stealing your comments so blatantly" should have been "I unreservedly apologise for my plagiarism in stealing your comments".
(The bit in brackets was good till he added the joke)

...the Forum has been mumbling about plagiarism, the fact that I straightened out the grammar and form of Chris' text and various other sins, but I assure you that I won’t be losing any sleep over it. Gimme a break, folks.

Okay, so how was it not plagiarism?
How is changing third person pronouns to first person pronouns to make the text read as his own become "straightening out the grammar and form"? (unless changing the form means changing it from looking like it was written by Hawkeye to looking like it was written by Randi)
Randi may not be losing sleep over it but some forumites have (I haven't, I'm just up late after a party), and some respectable ones at that.

 

[BillyJoe]

Why was reading posts on the Forum a waste of time? I can't see why the Forum shouldn't be a resource for Randi as well as others.

You missed my point which was that, if Randi was so busy (as he says), and if he already had the views espoused by hawkeye (as he says), why didn't he just publish those views instead of reading through a thread and finding those views in the thread, then cutting, pasting and editing. Which would be more time efficient do you think (for a busy man)?

I've often read stuff on the Forum and thought that's a great way of putting it and then later on used that when I'm making a similar point here and elsewhere.

But did you cut, paste, and change that stuff and pass it off as your own?

 

[Elaedith]

Well, lets analyse it:

Setting the scene - fair enough.

Sorry, but this is not correct.
He didn't just fail to credit the text. As I said before he "lifted the posts, changed a couple of words, added a bit of padding and changed certain third person pronouns into first person pronouns so as to pass the whole thing off as his own." If he had intended but "inadvertently failed" to credit the text, why would he make all the changes that made it look like he wrote it himself.

I'm trying to see how this was an "innocent error". He did not credit the text. He changed it to look like it was his own. It is difficult ot see this as innocent. Certainly it doesn't deserve concerned forumites being referred to as barking watchdogs.

I think he fails to explain clearly whether not giving credit was a mistake. You can alter text and still give credit, simply by stating that you are summarising or paraphrasing somebody else rather than quoting. If he intended to do that but forgot then its not such a big deal. Instead of explaining clearly whether or not this was the case, the responses seem quite incoherent.

 

[BillyJoe]

Reno,

You might be overreacting a little, best sleep on it for a while and keep an eye in. It is a serious commission in my opinion but I don't think it is the sort of thing he habitually does. As for his arrogance, he has always been that way. I can remember a fellow poster on these forums who was absolutely swiped by Randi for daring to make a particlar observation to him in an email. Randi assumed he was certain "type" that he often comes across (which he wasn't - I know because we often crossed paths on the forum and I knew what his motivation was). I still think of him sometimes and wonder if that event still affects him. I know he was deeply upset by it all at the time. Anyway, I do appreciate what Randi has done for scepticism and against charlatans and for the victims of hoaxers, but I would find it difficult to include him as one of my heroes (actually, I don't really believe in heroes anyway). But I read his comments every week, as you do, and I will continue to do so. I have also been here from the start as my join date demonstrates, so he must be doing something right. Or maybe it's just the forum

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Mr. Stick]

Like Reno I don't post very often, but visit the forum nearly every day. Initially my thoughts were very much like his, but after re-reading Randi's answer to Hawkeye, I think I'm more in line with Lisa's reaction. I think it's extenuating that Randi wrote : ...but I err occasionally as I did by stealing your comments so blatantly… It still bothers me he didn't apologize unconditionally in the new Swift.

 

[BillyJoe]

I think he fails to explain clearly whether not giving credit was a mistake.

All he said was "I inadvertently failed to credit a correspondent". It could mean anything I guess. It could mean he didn't think of crediting him but should have. It could mean he intended to but forgot. I think we will never find out. Personally I think he needs to revisit this whole issue, but I am not holding my breath.This subject is now off his radar.

You can alter text and still give credit, simply by stating that you are summarising or paraphrasing somebody else rather than quoting. If he intended to do that but forgot then its not such a big deal. Instead of explaining clearly whether or not this was the case, the responses seem quite incoherent.

Okay, I didn't see that angle. I guess that's possible. But as you say, if this was the case he could have stated that much more clearly.

 

[monoman]

..... I can't continue to quote Randi at people because I don't know for sure if it is Randi I'll be quoting. I can't tell anyone how much more of a human being he is than Sylvia Browne because he is content to carry out the same dastardly deeds that she does and like Browne, he couldn't care less what anyone thinks....

I just can't understand why you're getting so upset and making such comparisons. What do you mean by you don't know for sure if it's Randi you'll be quoting? Most of anyone's knowledge is second hand.

As far as I can see, the only mistake Randi made was to not change the post more. If he'd changed it more would you have accepted it? Is it the fact that you can still tell it's Hawkeye's post that bugs you? As he said, he was very busy that morning.

[Of course, the other option would have been to quote Hawkeye in full and attribute it]

 

[Reno]

BillyJoe,

on balance, the scales in my head still tip completely in favour of continuing to admire, respect and read Randi, of course, and I could never stop reading Swift or the fora here. One little error won't make me become a follower of woo. Maybe my recent post made it seem like I am overreacting. I'm probably not as annoyed as my post would indicate. I think I just had to vent a little. I am annoyed, but like Randi, I won't be losing any sleep over it really.

Thanks for your concern though.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

A mistake was made, apologies were offered. The TOS are clear, though and somehow forgotten. Personally I think everyone is over reacting. Skeptics can over-analyze and that's what I think is happening here. And that leads to:

 

[tkingdoll]

No apologies have been offered or given.

 

[Reno]

I just can't understand why you're getting so upset and making such comparisons. What do you mean by you don't know for sure if it's Randi you'll be quoting? Most of anyone's knowledge is second hand.

As far as I can see, the only mistake Randi made was to not change the post more. If he'd changed it more would you have accepted it? Is it the fact that you can still tell it's Hawkeye's post that bugs you? As he said, he was very busy that morning.

[Of course, the other option would have been to quote Hawkeye in full and attribute it]

Randi has often posted in entirety and as written, someone else's words. He usually prefaces this with something like: As suchandsuch said in a post - Then we will see the exact words from the original author. Randi's reasons for not doing that this time just don't make sense to me. And Randi has never not made sense to me before.

 

[BillyJoe]

As far as I can see, the only mistake Randi made was to not change the post more. If he'd changed it more would you have accepted it? Is it the fact that you can still tell it's Hawkeye's post that bugs you?

In other words, if he had covered up better, it would be alright?

[Of course, the other option would have been to quote Hawkeye in full and attribute it]

And so simple.

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe,

on balance, the scales in my head still tip completely in favour of continuing to admire, respect and read Randi, of course, and I could never stop reading Swift or the fora here. One little error won't make me become a follower of woo. Maybe my recent post made it seem like I am overreacting. I'm probably not as annoyed as my post would indicate. I think I just had to vent a little. I am annoyed, but like Randi, I won't be losing any sleep over it really.

Thanks for your concern though.

Ah, glad to hear it

 

[BillyJoe]

Vampire,

A mistake was made, apologies were offered. The TOS are clear, though and somehow forgotten. Personally I think everyone is over reacting. Skeptics can over-analyze and that's what I think is happening here. And that leads to:

Will you please stop beating that dead horse.

 

[jmercer]

Why was reading posts on the Forum a waste of time? I can't see why the Forum shouldn't be a resource for Randi as well as others. I've often read stuff on the Forum and thought that's a great way of putting it and then later on used that when I'm making a similar point here and elsewhere.

Ditto. The posts and threads in this forum have given me new insights and changed my mind about things on more than one occasion... and I've also learned some great techniques for making my point from other posters.

Frankly, I'm glad that Randi reads the forums. A lot of really good things that need to be said are said here. (And a lot of crap that nobody could possibly care about, too, but there are certainly gems among the dross.)

 

[monoman]

In other words, if he had covered up better, it would be alright?

Yes.

When i used to write essays (thank god those days are gone), they would be a mixture of my own formulated thoughts and opinions and direct quotes. Where do you think i got those ideas from? Books, discussion forums, speaking to people etc. Thankfully I had a lot more time to craft those ideas into my own.

I think it's great that Randi uses the forum as a source of material.

I may even use something that you've said when i'm out tonight.

Of course i'll say "So BillyJoe on this skeptical thinking forum said......" not "Well, in my opinion...."

 

[Jeff Wagg]

The forum is a resource to the world at large as well. We get frequent calls from the media asking about things that appear on the forum. The forum was quoted in the NY Times this week and the Wired article was spawned by the forum.. yeah, it's just a forum, but it's more important than might be immediately apparent.

 

[pjh]

I think the unspoken 'elephant in the room' here is that no-one can quite believe that a 'strapped for time' Randi was reading the forum and lifted a quote out of it and reworded it to make it look like he wrote it. It's just dumb and so unlike him.

It seems makes far more sense that some underling is ghost-writing chunks of the column and blatantly stole a post from the forum, and passed it on to Randi.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Vampire,

Will you please stop beating that dead horse.

The "dead horse" is the accusation that this thread has devolved into same.

Sorry, Vampire, but the solution, if you are satisfied with the apology (though none was given), is that you're not required to read through this. There are people here expressing their concerns that this has taken a little of the lustre off of someone we respect (present tense, please note). I think that some of them are rather upset, and if they want to air their concerns, wouldn't this be the place for them to do so? I'd hope so, rather than losing long-term loyal member-supporters who might go away angry.

Like Reno, I've admired the work of James Randi for years and quote him and SWIFT issues to friends and pub-debaters all the time. I've learned a whole lot, also, from the members of this forum over the years of lurking before I decided to join. As such, I think the dismissal as "barking dogs" is a bit off-putting, to say the least.

Randi had every opportunity to just say, "Sorry - I mean to attribute and I forgot..", but he didn't. Neither to Hawkeye nor in SWIFT. That concerns me. Not so much that I'm declining participation or going to ignore him, but it's like seeing Greta Garbo come out of retirement to do My Mother the Car. I'm just a little incredulous that a man who stands for honesty and skepticism would take such a cavalier attitude to what is admittedly a minor part but a part nonetheless of his body of work in the latter part of his life.

 

[delphi_ote]

I think the reason people are upset around here is precisely the reason this forum is so good: lots of people here work in academia, research, publishing, writing, and education. In all of these careers, this kind of behavior is verboten. Proper attribution is critical. My entire career would be ruined if I lifted another person's writing and made it my own. Excuses about a time deadline would not be acceptable. I understand that's not the enviornment that Randi lives in, but he's got a lot of us around that are very sensitive about this issue.

The usual course in academia when something like this happens is to give very transparent explanation of how the mistake was made, and then explain how exactly it's not going to happen again. In Randi's case, giving us all the details of how exactly this happened, "When I make the commentary, I usually have several text files I work on. I also sometimes copy a few of the more clever posts to help me gather my thoughts. This week, I accidentally crossed two of the files and thought this bit was my own work..." would help. Then he could explain some steps he's going to take to make sure he doesn't accidentally do it again.

As it stands right now, there are people wondering if he writes any of the commentary. That's really absurd, but the suspicions caused by a lack of transparency. And some of the people that are uncomfortable and vocal right now are some of our most important contributors.

If Randi wants to calm down the academic types, he really needs to tell us how it happened and what steps he's taking to make sure it doesn't happen again.