DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Bump. This is the thread I'm referencing.

- Doc

[_Xenophon]

As you wish, Doc.

Another one for the pile:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 7#p1091507

wow, DCP really does pay close attention here. Since I posted his unfortunate lapse in memory that his notes were actually written by someone else, he has adjusted his blog entry. Prior to the piece in question, it now reads:

Raw and largely unprocessed notes from a manuscript:
 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... OtR2pkC.99

Here's what it used to be, from the webcache,

Notes from a manuscript:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171115020 ... ience.html

He also added "[see original]" after the original author's footnote, something he does when he appropriates someone else's use of a quotation and their entire exact footnote.

Wouldn't it be easier to just say oops, I accidentally forgot the quotation marks? And the author's name? And the piece in which it was published? And the journal name? And the link??

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thanks, Xenophon!

I've been tempted to go through his online history and start Google-checking him because I find his pathological dishonesty psychologically fascinating.

I just wish I had access to that site academics use to check for plagiarism. I'd be nailing his ass to the wall regarding his academic publishing. I have no doubt he's published plagiarized material on a professional level.

- Doc

[_Xenophon]

No problem, Doc.

I just wish I had access to that site academics use to check for plagiarism. I'd be nailing his ass to the wall regarding his academic publishing. I have no doubt he's published plagiarized material on a professional level.

I think that remains to be seen, but who knows.

I find this fascinating on two levels. First is that it continues to happen. Dr. Peterson knows people are checking him, following up on his posts but he still lets things slip by. I know he views Patheos as an extracurricular but giving the amount of time he has spent editing posts and responding to these kinds of critical threads, it seems simpler just to meet the standards in the first place.

Second is the relationship between this board and him. I obviously wasn't posting around here during the peak of Mopologetics but have gone back and read a lot of the old threads. The friction between the two groups is bonkers to me but then again I never had to tussle. At this point I think the board needs DCP and DCP needs the board in some oddly symbiotic relationship of antagonism. I mean, we all need something to fight against.

[Guest]

Adding my thanks to you, Xenophon.

As to the relationship between the MDB and DCP; DCP is to the MDB what Donald Trump is to the network late night talk shows (especially Myers, Colbert and Kimmel).

Both Peterson and Trump are over the top narcissists who need nothing more than they need attention, good, bad or indifferent. Both appear to have a following of hard core true believers representing the far right or more fundamentalist members of their respective target audiences.

And neither should be allowed to get away with the unscrupulous promulgation their utter nonsense without some push back from the rational mainstream.
______________________

Edited for typos.

[_Lemmie]

I find this fascinating on two levels. First is that it continues to happen. Dr. Peterson knows people are checking him, following up on his posts but he still lets things slip by. I know he views Patheos as an extracurricular but giving the amount of time he has spent editing posts and responding to these kinds of critical threads, it seems simpler just to meet the standards in the first place.

That's what I would think too. He posted this today, I assume by way of attempts at further justification:

Others among the “manuscripts” that I’ve cited — notably, the one on science — are really files more than manuscripts proper.  That is, they contain some short original passages, but they’re mostly full of notes, quotations, close paraphrases, suggestions for (my own) further reading, specimens of arguments, one-word or one-phrase reminders of topics that I want to treat or of potential challenges that I should address, and so forth.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... kshop.html

[emphasis added, to note that key point. ]

Why would you put "close paraphrases" in a manuscript you are writing, without noting the original source and author?

[_Xenophon]

DrW, what a perfect analogy.

Some of the friction I was thinking of was more in the personal back and forth jabs that have at times gotten quite mean (not this thread). Apologies for any confusion.

[_Philo Sofee]

Why would you put "close paraphrases" in a manuscript you are writing, without noting the original source and author?

Because you need to be seen as the top pinnacle of knowing everything about everything yourself. You have to present the impression that nothing escapes your notice, that you read everything in every topic, in short, that you attempt to imitate the image of Hugh Nibley, who gave everyone everywhere the impression that if it's printed, I know about it, and know about it better than you do. That's my suspicion at least. It's all about image, the humble uber-intelligent person, well read, traveled, and knowledgable in all things, and he still believes in Mormonism, so it must be true. If smart people believe that silly fluff, then it is because it is true, because smart people are always more correct than all the rest of us ignorant "immature" thinking folk.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why would you put "close paraphrases" in a manuscript you are writing, without noting the original source and author?

Because you need to be seen as the top pinnacle of knowing everything about everything yourself. You have to present the impression that nothing escapes your notice, that you read everything in every topic, in short, that you attempt to imitate the image of Hugh Nibley, who gave everyone everywhere the impression that if it's printed, I know about it, and know about it better than you do. That's my suspicion at least. It's all about image, the humble uber-intelligent person, well read, traveled, and knowledgable in all things, and he still believes in Mormonism, so it must be true. If smart people believe that silly fluff, then it is because it is true, because smart people are always more correct than all the rest of us ignorant "immature" thinking folk.

That's a bingo.

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

Why would you put "close paraphrases" in a manuscript you are writing, without noting the original source and author?

Because you need to be seen as the top pinnacle of knowing everything about everything yourself. You have to present the impression that nothing escapes your notice, that you read everything in every topic, in short, that you attempt to imitate the image of Hugh Nibley, who gave everyone everywhere the impression that if it's printed, I know about it, and know about it better than you do. That's my suspicion at least. It's all about image, the humble uber-intelligent person, well read, traveled, and knowledgable in all things, and he still believes in Mormonism, so it must be true. If smart people believe that silly fluff, then it is because it is true, because smart people are always more correct than all the rest of us ignorant "immature" thinking folk.

Good points, philo. I agree with Doc, I think you've assessed it accurately.

There may be a downside for him, though. Although he doesn't think blogging is publishing and therefore doesn't see the problem with appropriating other's words without attribution, the Patheos terms of service state otherwise:

By posting, submitting or otherwise exchanging Member Content on or through the Site, you acknowledge, agree and understand that ... (iii) you explicitly represent and warrant that you are the sole owner of such Member Content or have all rights and licenses necessary regarding such Member Content....

https://web.archive.org/web/20171014043 ... e.aspx?p=2