DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_Gadianton]

"[Postscript: To M___ E___ and one or two of her associates, who eagerly scan these blog entries in hopes of finding evidence of plagiarism: "

Yikes! WTF?

I'll help out Coach here based on information that I believe is public enough: One is a stats professor and the other is an English professor, with very different styles of writing and interest. One is a math whiz and the other is into Marxism and postmodern theory. I get it: Coach doesn't know anything about math or philosophy so I can see where he's confused, but suffice it to say, for those of us who at least know a little, the difference is pretty much night and day.

[_Jersey Girl]

That probably wasn't a good idea. Just saying.

[_Philo Sofee]

I think it is hilarious that originally in posting and research it is too much work for a professional scholar to actually do it right the first time and properly reference sources with quotes, and then when he is caught, he takes the time to quote and demonstrate the references. What a lazy ass of a scholar. But then again, numbers impress him, so he thinks 666 lousy but speedily produced plagiarized are vastly superior to show the superiority of the Mormon mind, than just a mere 10 excellent scholarly articles all properly sourced. Obviously, even to the oblivious, 666 is a vastly superior spiritually large number than a mere 10.

You guys and gals are my heroes! Your work is STELLAR and seriously significant and completely demonstrating that fundamentally nothing of Peterson's is ever to be taken seriously. That is unless you are one of his little deacons passing his holy sacrament. THEN you best tow the line and praise him seriously or you will be demoted to semi-deacon and have to forgo passing the Peterson Sacrament for a year for punishment. Repentance can be sped up, I am sure, if you pay your tithing to this deity in the making in advance before he becomes Elohim, while he is still alive here on earth, and then he can give you credit, and in heaven you won't have to blow all your hard earned earth money.....WIN-WIN for mopologists and their gophers.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Now he’s desperately claiming his blog is just an easier place to ‘jot down his notes’ for a future book. Or. Whatever. So, that’s why sometimes he plagiarizes because, like, his blog is an electronic index card. Or whatever.

My eyes rolled so hard I just gave myself a migraine.

Edit: Doesn’t explain his DN articles, some of his MI work, nor his *whispers* dissertation.

- Doc

[_Dr Moore]

ROFL. This is seriously pathological. It reminds me of how Michael Richards imploded on stage and just went from bad to worse to done, all in one night.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, when you’ve managed to develop a coterie of ass kissers who say, “Hmmm, the thing is “they” must be real dullards to invest time in such a lofty pursuit. Who in their right mind, or with anything productive going on, goes looking for evidence of plagiarism on an apologist’s blog? That really is, in itself, evidence of “pathetic.””

Mormon morality, folks. Instead of being bothered or angered by theft, taking credit for others’ works, and being dishonest with your fellow man you get mad at people documenting it, because the plagiarizer, instead of owning up to it and fixing his issues doubles, triples, and quadruples down.

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

It looks like a Peterson has at least eliminated his doxxing attempt:

[Postscript: To those who obsessively scan these entries seeking evidence of plagiarism against me:

No more names.

[_Dr Exiled]

Coach responds:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... oices.html

Avatar
Dr. Exiled • 4 hours ago

Why not just properly attribute sources? That'll surely kill the "obsession" from "scumbag central" at finding plagiarism.


DanielPeterson Mod Dr. Exiled • an hour ago

Overwhelmingly -- OVERWHELMINGLY -- I do.

Sometimes my phrasing has -- by my own standards -- come inadvertently too close to that of a source that I've used. I write rapidly, and I confess that I've always worried about such a possibility. (I've seen the cases of Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin, who, I'm confident, didn't intend to plagiarize, and I've recognized who easily such a thing can happen without any intention to do so.) In such cases, when and if I've been aware of it, I've altered my phrasing.

In many cases, I simply don't agree that what has been "discovered" amounts to plagiarism. When I'm merely taking and sharing notes from a book or an article, and they're identified as notes from such and such a book or article, I don't think it especially troublesome -- especially in an ephemeral medium like a blog -- if some of the notes are close paraphrases of their identified source. When it's simply a matter of grabbing some dates and simple facts, I don't see any "plagiarism" in getting those non-proprietary facts from Wikipedia or some biographical dictionary or other without attribution. I never footnote uncontested dates; I feel no need to supply references for asserting that, say, US involvement in World War Two began in 1941 and ended in 1945, or that JFK was killed on 22 November 1963. By the time that the notes I share here are integrated into a published text -- if they actually ever are -- they will have been merged with other relevant notes and integrated into a larger text and a larger argument, and substantially re-written.

That will be the time when your associates can devote their computer resources and substantial time with most devastating effect to trying to discredit me and, thus, to silence any argument that I try to make.

In the meantime, Self-Exiled, I'm serving notice on you that I won't put up with your attempting to agitate on this issue here on my blog. You have a dedicated platform in your home message board where attacks on me of all kinds are the favorite pastime. Don't try to press my blog into redundant service for that enterprise.

[_Dr Moore]

Yeah, so a non admission it is. “I don’t plagiarize almost all of the time, so leave me alone when I do!”

I wonder if he is as lenient in plagiarism standards when grading student papers.

[_Lemmie]

I never footnote uncontested dates; I feel no need to supply references for asserting that, say, US involvement in World War Two began in 1941 and ended in 1945, or that JFK was killed on 22 November 1963.

Peterson protests over nothing he has been accused of, and glosses over the dozens of times he has been caught. If he didn’t consider those previous times “plagiarism,” why has he after the fact added references and repeatedly offered mea culpas, stating his (self-admitted) plagiarism was inadvertent? His attempts to downplay what he’s done are overrun by the dozens of examples detailed in this thread alone.

The rest of his excuse is just another layer of bluster over getting caught, yet again, as he has many, many times before. No one agrees with his definition of acceptable usage, not any of the sources he has stolen from, including Wikipedia and innumerable authors and journalists, not his blog host Patheos, not Deseret News, not the BYU Honor Code, not any other institution of higher education nor any other journalist source. And especially not the Faculty standard of the academic honor code he is held to as a BYU faculty member.

He is alone in asserting he has the right to steal intellectual property. His behavior is indefensible.