Roger Davies: Plagiarist? Options

[A Horse With No Name]

Sometimes, the runner stumbles.

I can confirm that our friendly newshound Cade Metz is aware of this situation.

[RMHED]

Sometimes, the runner stumbles.

I can confirm that our friendly newshound Cade Metz is aware of this situation.

Shocking!

It's so much easier when you just make it up as you go along...

[A Horse With No Name]

Now Durova is digging up the dirt and laying it thick. Shake it, mama, you're doing just fine!

Who wants to bet the Arbcom bunch will circle the wagons to protect Roger from being tossed to the wolves?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Mon 22nd February 2010, 10:31pm

[Basil]

I picked 3 articles at random from articles that Roger created and found plagiarism from online sources in each of them. Second Vinson Act (T-H-L-K-D), Andrew Hamilton Russell (T-H-L-K-D), Camp Vernet (T-H-L-K-D) suggesting that this is a systemic problem.
As an example, in the Camp Vernet article, the source has

In total about 40,000 persons of 58 nationalities were interned in the camp--mainly men but also women and children.

WP has

In total, about 40,000 persons of 58 nationalities were interned in the camp; mainly men but also women and children.[1]

The only difference being the comma, and the semi-colon.


Edited to note the comma.

This post has been edited by Basil: Mon 22nd February 2010, 11:18pm

[BelovedFox]

Not looking at anything related to the issues, but on plagiarism in general--we have all done it. When someone has been deliberately and willfully plagiarizing content left and right, we've got serious issues (aside from possible copyright concerns), but I've found that everyone is prone to making mistakes like that unless clearly reminded.

In my high school back in the day, we got abstract lessons in plagiarism. I held then, and still do today, based on my own academic career, that what would have been better would have been to assign a short research paper, then pick them apart and show what was copy-pasted or a brain-dead recitation to the class. It's a lot more effective and makes people aware of how easy it is to miss a citation, leave out quotation marks, or forget that some specific language was not your own.

[Milton Roe]

Not looking at anything related to the issues, but on plagiarism in general--we have all done it. When someone has been deliberately and willfully plagiarizing content left and right, we've got serious issues (aside from possible copyright concerns), but I've found that everyone is prone to making mistakes like that unless clearly reminded.

In my high school back in the day, we got abstract lessons in plagiarism. I held then, and still do today, based on my own academic career, that what would have been better would have been to assign a short research paper, then pick them apart and show what was copy-pasted or a brain-dead recitation to the class. It's a lot more effective and makes people aware of how easy it is to miss a citation, leave out quotation marks, or forget that some specific language was not your own.

In particular, if the "plagarized passage" is annotated with the very text plagarized, you can pretty much figure the author wasn't trying to hide anything! I give Roger Davies a pass here, too, methinks.

Gee, I'm feeling mellow today.

[A Horse With No Name]

Gee, I'm feeling mellow today.

Phooey, we don't need a mellow Miltie. Here, have a nice big glass of vinegar -- it will put you back in the right mood!

By the way -- who is Roger Davies in real life? Is he a serious academic, or is he another 16-year-old home schooled Wiki-addict? Inquiring minds want to know!

Not looking at anything related to the issues, but on plagiarism in general--we have all done it.

Speak for yourself, Foxy! I never did it, even when I was a wee colt in school.

And if Wikipedia were a real publishing company, Roger would be flying out the door with Jimbo's shoe up his butt!

And, as usual, Risker tries to censor the discussion while pretending otherwise:

"It is my understanding that Roger is away for a few days. While I do not have any intention of suppressing concerns here, perhaps someone can come up with a way of identifying the concerns and permitting him to respond without keeping a thread open for several days on this noticeboard." 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Risker (talk • contribs) (Emphasis added to show that she doesn't want this conversation to progress)

Meanwhile, Durova is finding additional evidence of plagiarism.

[EricBarbour]

If you're looking for more examples of his plagiarism.....

...you could look through his Awards page.

(PS: Durova, are you going to rescind your Lord Roberts Barnstar of Accuracy or not?)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 23rd February 2010, 12:18am

[chrisoff]

Not looking at anything related to the issues, but on plagiarism in general--we have all done it.

*I did it once, and my high school teacher caught me. That was the last time.

[GlassBeadGame]

So...this will have no impact on The Kinks catalog, right?

[Wiki Witch of the West]

If you're looking for more examples of his plagiarism.....

...you could look through his Awards page.

(PS: Durova, are you going to rescind your Lord Roberts Barnstar of Accuracy or not?)

Heh, Roger did get that barnstar fair and square for correcting a Library of Congress bibliographic error.

Catch-22: if one extends good faith and gives credit where credit is due it's guaranteed that somebody at WR will snark if problems ever appear. On the other hand, if one does look in every corner then an entirely different type of snark is also guaranteed.

Meh.

I'll go write another article.

[GlassBeadGame]

Davies' explanation that the plagiarism is "accidental" and comes about when pasted passages from sources got inserted without getting the once over dusting is one of clearest examples of WP as a simulation of a scholarly activity, not the actual scholarly activity itself. This is what happen when the people who could not otherwise engage in the activity engage in the virtual activity without making any distinction.

[A Horse With No Name]

Davies' explanation that the plagiarism is "accidental" and comes about when pasted passages from sources got inserted without getting the once over dusting is one of clearest examples of WP as a simulation of a scholarly activity, not the actual scholarly activity itself. This is what happen when the people who could not otherwise engage in the activity engage in the virtual activity without making any distinction.

It is also a phony explanation, given the repeated cases of cut-and-paste. Once or twice is a mistake, but this appears to be a modus operandi.

Also, underage suck-up NuclearWarfare is rushing to close this matter while it is still in progress. How old is this kid, any way? Julian was kept off WR because he was supposedly under 16 -- how about getting an age check on NW, since he participates here?

[EricBarbour]

Also, underage suck-up NuclearWarfare is rushing to close this matter while it is still in progress. How old is this kid, any way? Julian was kept off WR because he was supposedly under 16 -- how about getting an age check on NW, since he participates here?

Personally I am getting a bit sick of Nuke's behaviour. He comes here and bitches about bad governance...then he logs into WP and does things that are remarkably bad-governance-like. Translation: he's a sock-freak. And a dick.

Where were we? Oh, right, the "editor emeritus" of the Wikiproject Military History, and his plagiarism.....
(Not to mention his pseudo-canvassing for his RFA... )

Annnnd closed out, by the ever-so-sweet Unitanode. A userpage was created, but I see nothing there but Davies claiming to fix a few instances.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 23rd February 2010, 2:37am

[IN278S]

So...this will have no impact on The Kinks catalog, right?

Wikipedia's catalog of kinks will continue to flourish, I'm sure.

[MZMcBride]

Davies' explanation that the plagiarism is "accidental" and comes about when pasted passages from sources got inserted without getting the once over dusting is one of clearest examples of WP as a simulation of a scholarly activity, not the actual scholarly activity itself. This is what happen when the people who could not otherwise engage in the activity engage in the virtual activity without making any distinction.

I don't really need to be the one to point out that plenty of scholars have been caught plagiarizing. And with the advent of the Internet, it's become even easier to scan old works that were once never suspected. I'm not sure if it was your intention, but your comment makes it seem as though the issue of plagiarism is somehow (particularly) related to Wikipedia. This seems far more closely linked to general human behavior.

[GlassBeadGame]

Davies' explanation that the plagiarism is "accidental" and comes about when pasted passages from sources got inserted without getting the once over dusting is one of clearest examples of WP as a simulation of a scholarly activity, not the actual scholarly activity itself. This is what happen when the people who could not otherwise engage in the activity engage in the virtual activity without making any distinction.

I don't really need to be the one to point out that plenty of scholars have been caught plagiarizing. And with the advent of the Internet, it's become even easier to scan old works that were once never suspected. I'm not sure if it was your intention, but your comment makes it seem as though the issue of plagiarism is somehow (particularly) related to Wikipedia. This seems far more closely linked to general human behavior.

My point was that this guy had no idea that appropriating the work of another person, making cosmetic changes to hide the appropriation, was itself wrong. You know that, right?

[A Horse With No Name]

Davies' explanation that the plagiarism is "accidental" and comes about when pasted passages from sources got inserted without getting the once over dusting is one of clearest examples of WP as a simulation of a scholarly activity, not the actual scholarly activity itself. This is what happen when the people who could not otherwise engage in the activity engage in the virtual activity without making any distinction.

I don't really need to be the one to point out that plenty of scholars have been caught plagiarizing. And with the advent of the Internet, it's become even easier to scan old works that were once never suspected. I'm not sure if it was your intention, but your comment makes it seem as though the issue of plagiarism is somehow (particularly) related to Wikipedia. This seems far more closely linked to general human behavior.

My point was that this guy had no idea that appropriating the work of another person, making cosmetic changes to hide the appropriation, was itself wrong. You know that, right?

The circle-the-wagons effect to stifle all talk of plagiarism is in full motion, despite efforts by Ironholds and Durova to point out that these are not isolated cases of "Oops, my mistake!" As usual, Arbcom and its apologists/stooges want to maintain a double standard that works very well for them but makes the rest of the web site look ridiculous to the rest of the world.

Ultimately, everybody wins. Roger keeps his worthless position (note how he first claims that he is too busy to respond, then he goes into a full-depth answering), his friends keep him in his worthless position, and those keeping track of the hypocrisy and stupidity of Arbcom (and, by extension, the full WP culture) have a Fort Knox-worthy gold reserve of evidence that confirms how Wikipedia has nothing to do with serious reference publishing and everything to do with idiot games.

[EricBarbour]

Ultimately, everybody wins. Roger keeps his worthless position (note how he first claims that he is too busy to respond, then he goes into a full-depth answering), his friends keep him in his worthless position, and those keeping track of the hypocrisy and stupidity of Arbcom (and, by extension, the full WP culture) have a Fort Knox-worthy gold reserve of evidence that confirms how Wikipedia has nothing to do with serious reference publishing and everything to do with idiot games.

Just another brick in The Wall. Just another chapter in The Book.

[Deodand]

Davies' explanation that the plagiarism is "accidental" and comes about when pasted passages from sources got inserted without getting the once over dusting is one of clearest examples of WP as a simulation of a scholarly activity, not the actual scholarly activity itself. This is what happen when the people who could not otherwise engage in the activity engage in the virtual activity without making any distinction.

I don't really need to be the one to point out that plenty of scholars have been caught plagiarizing. And with the advent of the Internet, it's become even easier to scan old works that were once never suspected. I'm not sure if it was your intention, but your comment makes it seem as though the issue of plagiarism is somehow (particularly) related to Wikipedia. This seems far more closely linked to general human behavior.

My point was that this guy had no idea that appropriating the work of another person, making cosmetic changes to hide the appropriation, was itself wrong. You know that, right?

The circle-the-wagons effect to stifle all talk of plagiarism is in full motion, despite efforts by Ironholds and Durova to point out that these are not isolated cases of "Oops, my mistake!" As usual, Arbcom and its apologists/stooges want to maintain a double standard that works very well for them but makes the rest of the web site look ridiculous to the rest of the world.

Ultimately, everybody wins. Roger keeps his worthless position (note how he first claims that he is too busy to respond, then he goes into a full-depth answering), his friends keep him in his worthless position, and those keeping track of the hypocrisy and stupidity of Arbcom (and, by extension, the full WP culture) have a Fort Knox-worthy gold reserve of evidence that confirms how Wikipedia has nothing to do with serious reference publishing and everything to do with idiot games.

A compliment for Ironholds? Oh my

At the end of the day, ArbCom are politicians. Whatever the agendas of users, as they advance further up the "ranks" they become increasingly concerned with covering their own arse as opposed to, y'know, helping the project. A lot of admins engage in arse-covering; most 'crats, all arbs.