DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_Lemmie]

Like how he fixed the plagiarism in his 2016 Interpreter article titled: "Cloud Illusions and the Perfect Day" ?

from a 2/2016 thread here, I am excerpting just the last few sentences of what he plagiarized in the Cloud piece:
htttp://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vi ... 70#p956270

color coded...

The mass of the Sun is 1.989 x 1030 [sic] kilograms, about 333,000 times the mass of the Earth.The total volume of the Sun is 1.4 x 1027 [sic] cubic meters. Thus, roughly 1.3 million Earths could fit inside it. The sun contains 99.8 percent of the mass of the entire solar system, leading astronomers Imke de Pater and Jack J. Lissauer, authors of the textbook Fundamental Planetary Sciences [sic], to refer to the solar system as merely “the sun plus some debris.”

The total volume of the sun is 1.4 x 10[^]27 cubic meters. About 1.3 million Earths could fit inside the sun. The mass of the sun is 1.989 x 10[^]30 kilograms, about 333,000 times the mass of the Earth. The sun contains 99.8 percent of the mass of the entire solar system, leading astronomers Imke de Pater and Jack J. Lissauer, authors of the textbook "Planetary Sciences," to refer to the solar system as "the sun plus some debris."

Peterson wrote a mea culpa he wrote for that one also, ("An apology regarding my “Interpreter” article today," ), which he repeated in the Interpreter article's comment section, as well as adding the below:

Some changes have now been made to the text, and Tim Sharp’s article has been credited in note 3.

After his "changes," here is how that plagiarized passage looks in the Interpreter today:

The Sun’s mass is 1.989 x 1030 kilograms, or roughly 333,000 times that of Earth, and its total volume is 1.4 x 1027 cubic meters. Thus, about 1.3 million Earths could fit within it. In fact, the Sun contains 99.8 percent of the mass of the entire solar system, which is why Imke de Pater and Jack J. Lissauer, in their textbook Fundamental Planetary Sciences, quip that our solar system is essentially “the sun plus some debris.”3

Notice that "3," after the five words, the sun plus some debris, in quotation marks?

Here's footnote 3:

3. Jack J. Lissauer and Imke de Pater, Fundamental Planetary Science: Physics, Chemistry and Habitability (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 4. See also Tim Sharp, “How Big is the Sun?” (http://www.space.com/17001-how-big-is-t ... e-sun.html).

The quotation marks around ONLY the 5 words, which by the way were also in Tim Sharpe's excerpt with a footnote, and Peterson's footnote 3 with the added "See also," DO NOT indicate that the material is still exactly the same ideas as expressed by Sharpe, still exactly in the same order, still using almost the exact same words. Changing some synonyms does not erase the plagiarism.

This habit of Peterson's was discussed on the Faith-Promoting Rumor blog also in early 2016, ironically about yet another DCP plagiarism incident. Commenter TT summed it up thus:

....check out the link that [was provided] below.
[ https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... id=2325380 ]

{From the above link,] This is an example of what is called there "word for word plagiarism" and a "patchwork paraphrase."

For example, "Even if the [writer] had acknowledged [the source] as the source of the content, the language of the passage would be considered plagiarized because no quotation marks indicate the phrases that come directly from [the source]. And if quotation marks did appear around all these phrases, this paragraph would be so cluttered that it would be unreadable."


And,
"even though the writer acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as the [writer's] own."


It is what BYU's honor code calls "plagiarism mosaic."

https://registrar.BYU.edu/c...

"The borrowing of words, ideas, or data from an original source and blending this original material with one’s own without acknowledging the source."

These are the writing standards of every professional organization I know, though I don't have the DN writing guidelines, I'd be surprised if they did not adhere to professional journalism standards along these lines.

Providing a link [to] the source one is copying is not a defense.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromo ... eret-news/

Peterson's "correction" of the plagiarism in his 2016 Interpreter article was wholly inadequate. It will be interesting to see his "corrections" moving forward.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Peterson's "correction" of the plagiarism in his 2016 Interpreter article was wholly inadequate. It will be interesting to see his "corrections" moving forward.

And I’m sure that you will continue to keep everyone well informed.

[_Tator]

At the least, Pasterson is a very, very sloppy professor. I give him an F, if he corrects all his abuses satisfactorily I give him an F+. IOWs he is still a failure.

[_Lemmie]

And I’m sure that you will continue to keep everyone well informed.

...at a certain point, being a contrarian simply for the sake of being a contrarian, even when one is technically ON-topic, counts as "trolling." And trolling is a derailment...[meant only] to distract and annoy the opening poster (in my reasoned opinion).

Anyway, back to the topic....

From the comment by TT, it is worth emphasizing again that the methods used by Peterson are very clearly considered plagiarism, even if he adds a source:

"Even if the [writer] had acknowledged [the source] as the source of the content, the language of the passage would be considered plagiarized because no quotation marks indicate the phrases that come directly from [the source].

And,

"even though the writer acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as the [writer's] own."

[_Ceeboo]

This is such a pretty post! Like a rainbow!

color coded...

The mass of the Sun is 1.989 x 1030 [sic] kilograms, about 333,000 times the mass of the Earth.The total volume of the Sun is 1.4 x 1027 [sic] cubic meters. Thus, roughly 1.3 million Earths could fit inside it. The sun contains 99.8 percent of the mass of the entire solar system, leading astronomers Imke de Pater and Jack J. Lissauer, authors of the textbook Fundamental Planetary Sciences [sic], to refer to the solar system as merely “the sun plus some debris.”

The total volume of the sun is 1.4 x 10[^]27 cubic meters. About 1.3 million Earths could fit inside the sun. The mass of the sun is 1.989 x 10[^]30 kilograms, about 333,000 times the mass of the Earth. The sun contains 99.8 percent of the mass of the entire solar system, leading astronomers Imke de Pater and Jack J. Lissauer, authors of the textbook "Planetary Sciences," to refer to the solar system as "the sun plus some debris."

[_EAllusion]

The fact that Dr. Peterson has been caught repeatedly making slight alterations and remixings of unattributed quotes makes it very hard to believe that his plagiarism was unintentional. That's neither paraphrasing ideas from someone else getting mixed with one's own ideas nor is it simply forgetting to include an attribution. It's just slightly masking a quote. It's hard to accidentally do that over and over.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Daniel C. Peterson,

As a graduate of BYU, I feel it encumbent that you come clean for the integrity of the institution.

Please immediately apologize and notify the Honor Code Office/Administration of your actions. It's the only ethical and honorable course of action. If you disagree, I would appreciate hearing your reasons.

If you are good, honest and truly a man of character there is only one course of action.

I truly hope you'll do the right/correct thing on your own.

[_Tom]

Dr. Peterson has now added a note to his post about Katharine Smith:

"These notes are based on a reading of Kyle R. Walker, 'Katharine Smith Salisbury: Sister to the Prophet,' in Mormon Historical Studies 3/1 (2002): 5-34. Mormon Historical Studies is the journal of the invaluable Mormon Historic Sites Foundation."

And a note to his post titled "Notes on 'simple' life":

"(Preliminary notes drawn from the cited pages of Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and from Dean Overman’s A Case against Accident and Self-Organization, pp. 23, 32-24)"

[Guest]

Dr. Peterson has now added a note to his post about Katharine Smith:

"These notes are based on a reading of Kyle R. Walker, 'Katharine Smith Salisbury: Sister to the Prophet,' in Mormon Historical Studies 3/1 (2002): 5-34. Mormon Historical Studies is the journal of the invaluable Mormon Historic Sites Foundation."

And a note to his post titled "Notes on 'simple' life":

"(Preliminary notes drawn from the cited pages of Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and from Dean Overman’s A Case against Accident and Self-Organization, pp. 23, 32-24)"

The example cited here highlights a problem with DCP's work product that, to me at least, is more disturbing than his plagiarism - which is plenty disturbing in and of itself.

The main problem with DCP's engagement with science is that he often cites, and sides with, anti-science religionists ranging from pseudoscientific "experts" with Ph.D.s, to out and out crackpots such as those associated with Ken Ham or the Discovery Institute.

This cadre of anti-evolution young earth creationists, intelligent designers, quantum mechanical mis-interpreters, dowsing adherents, cosmological fine tuners, and other assorted denizens of the anti-science / pseudoscience fringe get more play on Sic et Non than Elvis Presley on payola radio.

The fact that DCP searches out and cites these kinds of wingnut sources is a clear indication that he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, or that he is intentionally misrepresenting science in order to meet his perceived obligations as an apologist. Unlike religion, science is not whatever one happens to believe. Modern science is what remains as reality whether one decides to believe it or not.

DCP is doing his undiscriminating readers a great disservice. He is either lying to them about objective scientific facts, or he is a pretender completely unqualified to be commenting at all, or both.

Either way, following DCP and Sic et Non on science is about as useful as following Bernie Madoff on personal finance.
__________________________________

ETA: Made changes to include "both" options and then saw that Maks had suggested pretty much the same. Going to leave my post text as last written.

[_Maksutov]

The main problem with DCP's engagement with science is that he often cites, and sides with, anti-science religionists ranging from pseudoscientific "experts" with Ph.D.s, to out and out crackpots including many who are associated with the Discovery Institute.

This cadre of anti-evolution young earth creationists, intelligent designers, quantum mechanical mis-interpreters, dowsing adherents, cosmological fine tuners, and other assorted denizens of the anti-science / pseudoscience fringe get more play on Sic et Non than Elvis Presley on payola radio.

The fact that DCP searches out and cites these kinds of wingnut sources is a clear indication that he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, or that he is intentionally misrepresenting science in order to meet his perceived obligations as an apologist. Unlike religion, science is not whatever one happens to believe. Modern science is what remains whether one decides to believe it or not.

DCP is doing his undiscriminating readers a great disservice. He is either lying about objective scientific facts, or he is a pretender completely unqualified to be commenting at all.

My vote is bolded and in two parts. I think it may be an "and" and not an "or".