Whoa, am I psychic?

[Jackalgirl]

Seriously - don't you consider watchdogs the good guys?

Darat, I don't think it's the "watchdogs" part. I think it's complimentary to be called a watchdog, too.

It's the "barking" part. It makes it sound like speech that's just noise. Sure, a watchdog may be barking for a reason, but a watchdog does not usually bark out well-reasoned objection or expressions. It's just barking. So the comparison makes it sound like we're just making mouth-noises. At least, that's how I initially took it.

I think the suggestions so far have been very good -- i.e., explaining the process (for example, the cutting-and-pasting into a working draft) and how it could go wrong, an acknowledgement of how egregious plagairism is and how it really was a total mistake (especially since this is something we [as in the skeptical community] have taken frauds -- I mean, "psychics" -- to task for), and how it won't happen again. When I royally screw up in the Navy, I have to demonstrate how I will make sure I won't do it -- and how I'll prevent other people from doing it -- again.

The other thing that bugged me, Darat, is that I've /seen/ Randi directly quote readers (and emailers) in Swift all the time. "Reader so-and-so says" <insert quote here> "I completely agree, so-and-so." So it really seems /odd/ to see this happen. I can totally see it occuring if Randi's throwing together a bunch of thoughts and forgets that the pasted material isn't his, especially if it's almost exactly his own opinion. I'd just like to see that that's what happened, rather than us guessing about it.

And, /again/, because plagiarism is one of the things we (the skeptical community) actively pursue when we're looking at <insert fraud of choice here>, I think that it is worth a bit more attention. Reno is, IMHO, spot on.

 

[delphi_ote]

I didn't imply that, so don't put words in my mouth. I don't know where they have been.

Right. Your comment about the "passing woos" being "entertained" in no way reflected the belief that our "splitting hairs" in this "melt-down" is hurting our cause. If you're going to trot out the McCarthy rhetoric, at least have the courage and conviction to stand behind your words.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Right. Your comment about the "passing woos" being "entertained" in no way reflected the belief that our "splitting hairs" in this "melt-down" is hurting our cause. If you're going to trot out the McCarthy rhetoric, at least have the courage and conviction to stand behind your words.

**Burp**

 

[baron]

Randi may have been hesitant to apologize and less than forthcoming, but I hardly think it was "purely to criticise".

Look at the title - "Plagiarism?". The title clearly states, IMO, that the purpose of the article is to dispute (i.e. be critical of) allegations. It starts with an excuse and follows swiftly on to mention the "forum watchdogs barking" at his "innocent error". Then we have the email followed by a summary in which Randi again talks of forum members "mumbling", throws out that Hawkeye's grammar wasn't up to scratch and then says he doesn't care anyway.

And you say this is just "hesitancy"? Your view, of course, but I strongly disagree.

 

[BillyJoe]

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

This is so clearly an insult it's not funny.

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

If you innocently approach a gate and the resident watchdogs come running up to you barking, what sort of feeling to you get. I'll bet it's a pretty negative emotion. That's the way Randi sees the Forum watchdogs barking at at his innocent remark. As I said before, I doubt if even Randi would deny this.

Email him and find out.

 

[delphi_ote]

Look at the title - "Plagiarism?". The title clearly states, IMO, that the purpose of the article is to dispute (i.e. be critical of) allegations. It starts with an excuse and follows swiftly on to mention the "forum watchdogs barking" at his "innocent error". Then we have the email followed by a summary in which Randi again talks of forum members "mumbling", throws out that Hawkeye's grammar wasn't up to scratch and then says he doesn't care anyway.

And you say this is just "hesitancy"? Your view, of course, but I strongly disagree.

My point is that there was some information in there, too. And an admission of error. Even if it was full backhand, Randi wasn't just writing to insult.

 

[kmortis]

Look at the title - "Plagiarism?". The title clearly states, IMO, that the purpose of the article is to dispute (i.e. be critical of) allegations. It starts with an excuse and follows swiftly on to mention the "forum watchdogs barking" at his "innocent error". Then we have the email followed by a summary in which Randi again talks of forum members "mumbling", throws out that Hawkeye's grammar wasn't up to scratch and then says he doesn't care anyway.

And you say this is just "hesitancy"? Your view, of course, but I strongly disagree.

"If you steal from one, it's plagarism. If you steal from many, it's research."
-Wilson Milzner

 

[chillzero]

Another thing that concerns me about this whole affair is this: What happens if one day I make a post that is exactly what Randi is thinking and it turns up - without credit to me - on a Swift. Then let's suppose this witty and insightful piece of prose gets bandied about the fora here and maybe (who knows) mentioned on CNN or whatever. Everybody is saying ,"Randi says blah de blah. Isn't that insightful?" And I say, in my little 200post-voice, "oh, that was me who said that first. Randi is quoting me." I'd be told to buzz off and wouldn't be welcome within a lightyear of the board.

I think this entire thread indicates the error in that assumption.

 

[Cuddles]

The way I see it, the problem isn't how or why Randi managed to copy the quote, it's how much ammo his reaction afterwards gives to the woos. How can Randi ever complain about someone else plagarising now, when all they have to do is say "Yes, I copied something. But I don't care.", since this is exactly what Randi himself has done. If they refuse to admit copying then he can go after them, but as soon as they admit it he has no case, whether they do anything about it or not.

 

[rjh01]

I do not think this gives the woos much comfort. Randi has the right to copy as much as he wants from this forum. The only mistake Randi made was that he forgot to say that he did do this. I have seen heaps of books without any references in them when they should have.

Anyone who breeches copyright can be sued. But only if it is worth it.

Please somebody put some cat pictures up.

 

[BillyJoe]

To The Apologists

Randi has the right to copy as much as he wants from this forum. The only mistake Randi made was that he forgot to say that he did do this.

Last try and I'm done.

I cannot make sense of Randi's explanation.
There are three parts to this:

I inadvertently failed to credit a correspondent

This means that he intended to credit the author but forgot, or he usually credits the author but failed to do so this time. I still have a problem with this because he actually changed it to look like he wrote it himself, whereas the normal thing to do would be to simply quote and credit the author and express your agreement. What was he thinking while he was changing the words to make it look like he wrote it himself. What I mean is, how was he thinking of crediting the author while he was changing the authors words to make it look like he wrote it himself? I really have a problem with this.

I could have changed the wording, but getting SWIFT together each week...calls for some corner-cutting every now and then.

This could mean that he could have changed the wording and did. Or it could mean that he could have changed the wording but did not. If he means he did change the wording, then how was this "corner-cutting". It would have been faster to simply quote and acknowledge the author. If he meant he did not change the wording then that is simply untrue. Because he obviously did change it. It doesn't make sense either way!

I straightened out the grammar and form of Chris' text and various other sins

Okay, he is saying that he did change the wording. So how is this "corner-cutting"?


I'm sorry, but the whole thing just doesn't make sense.
Anyway, I'm through trying to explain it.
If you want to explain it away by covering your ears and eyes, that's up to you.


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[delphi_ote]

I have seen heaps of books without any references in them when they should have.

A classic blend of tu quoque and ad populum. The fact that other people do act unethically does not excuse Randi from that same unethical action.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Feet of Clay

I agree with Teek and Delphi here. I have been a college student for seven years now, and we are constantly warned about even seeming to plagiarize, with harsh penalties should we ever actually do. Professors are not immune to punishment for plagiarism either. As Delphi has described, an instance of plagiarism must be followed with at least some assurance that the mistake will not be repeated.

Famously, Sylvia Browne was caught plagiarizing in one of her books, which is rightly used against her by critics. While it can be argued that she is making money off her books while Mr. Randi does not, the critical factor is that Mr. Randi has something psychics like Browne can only dream of-- power. His words can be used to change the world.

With power comes responsibility, however. Mr. Randi has a responsibility to maintain himself and his reputation in the eyes of others. Being guilty of the same flaw used to condemn another is a problem, not caring about it makes the problem worse. Mr. Randi's armor of honesty has developed a chink, and it should be repaired before someone uses it to undermine everything he is and what he stands for. How can anyone demand honesty from others, when they do not demand it of themselves?

 

[Cleon]

Suggestion: Instead of continuing to beat this poor, dead horse, might I suggest that those truly troubled by this send a nice, politely-worded email to randi@randi.org? He *does* read his email, and it might just get a response.

 

[BillyJoe]

Cleon,

To Randi, I believe this is a dead issue.
He has dealt with it and moved on.

 

[Cleon]

Cleon,

To Randi, I believe this is a dead issue.
He has dealt with it and moved on.

I don't doubt it, but if enough people have concerns about the way he dealt with it, they should communicate it to him. Say what you will about Randi, but he does listen to people.

 

[BillyJoe]

...well, it depends what they're saying.

(see my previous post regarding this - just wish I could remember who he was and what the problem was - something to do with mathematics which is probably why I can't remember.)

 

[Hindmost]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apology

 

[Hindmost]

Randi will always be one of the people I admire most. One small mistake that he was quick to admit and apologize for isn't going to change that. (and we all make mistakes)

let's move on.

glenn

 

[tkingdoll]

Randi will always be one of the people I admire most. One small mistake that he was quick to admit and apologize for isn't going to change that. (and we all make mistakes)

let's move on.

glenn

When we get the apology, we might.