DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_Lemmie]

Regarding Peterson's argument that blog entries don't count, here are the terms of service from Patheos, where his blog entry published:

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

[_Dr Exiled]

Regarding Peterson's argument that blog entries don't count, here are the terms of service from Patheos, where his blog entry published:

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

I wonder if infoplease and patheos would be interested in this discussion? On another note, how quickly can one take down offending blog posts?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Let's go back to his article above and deconstruct it a bit. Cool? Cool. I'll just tuck the quoted bits from the Catholic Encyclopedia underneath his bits to compare and contrast.

He opens with this:

Today is Ascension Day, or Holy Thursday. It commemorates the physical ascension of the resurrected Jesus Christ into heaven as recorded in the New Testament: >scripture followed by (Luke 24:50-53; compare Mark 16:19).

The fortieth day after Easter Sunday, commemorating the Ascension of Christ into heaven, according to Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, and Acts 1:2.

So, right away you can see he wanted to do an article on this topic. It's apparent he googled the topic, clicked on the hit provided by Google, saw the Catholic Encyclopedia article, and decided he had source material. Moving on...

The next two paragraphs in his article are the ones I highlighted in the post prior to this one. You'll note he probably takes "The fortieth day after Easter Sunday" above and tucks it into this statement:

Ascension Day is traditionally (though not always) celebrated on a Thursday, 40 days after Easter.

So, after pasting a scripture into his article he goes on to add his own thoughts a bit, which is fine. That's what people do.

So. His M.O. is pretty clear as I explained above. He has a thought, say related to the time of the year or to some event he's involved with, Googles it, hits on a piece, scavenges it for inspiration and material, reworks it into a bit, and publishes it. He does this over and over and over again with his DN articles, blog, and whatever else he publishes.

That's it. Now you know. You can choose to believe he's an amazing intellect, or you can believe what's before your eyes. No skin off my nose if you don't.

- Doc

[_DrW]

This latest blog post example, in contrast, has more cribbed facts and a lot more copied words. The only issue is whether it counts as plagiarism when it's in a blog. That's the only defense Peterson himself has made.

What difference can it possibly make whether or not "Peterson's" writing is published on line in a blog, in a newspaper column, or a peer reviewed journal?

All are publicly available works of literature that Peterson attributes unto himself (overtly takes credit for), if and when he does not properly credit the original authors or copyright holders.

Moreover, as Lemmie points out upthread, at least one of the sources he steals from states clearly that content obtained from their works may not be published anywhere, including on the internet, without written permission and proper attribution.

Come on, PG. Like the rest of us who have been published, from peer reviewed journals, to books, to newspapers, to trade rags, you have surely been taught, from an early age, to adhere to the ethics and common decency that apply to the authorship enterprise. As many have pointed out - it's just not that hard to do. Peterson has no credible defense here - none.

DCP's behavior in this regard would get him sanctioned or dismissed from any university or reputable company I can imagine. If detected, it would get him a failing grade in a high school class for goodness sake.

His behavior in this regard is that of a poorly raised ten year old caught in a lie.

[_Lemmie]

I wonder if infoplease and patheos would be interested in this discussion? On another note, how quickly can one take down offending blog posts?

Interesting that you should mention that! Peterson has now removed all content of his 2017 plagiarism currently under discussion.

Although the entry is still titled “New find could be oldest evidence of life ever discovered”, it now contains just a snarky admission of plagiarism.

"New find could be oldest evidence of life ever discovered”
March 1, 2017 by Dan Peterson

Hi, Lemmie!

Thanks for your help.

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

That he removed the contents of that entry, including the plagiarism, clearly puts to rest the question of whether Peterson considers a plagiarized blog entry to be plagiarism. Although leaving it up under that title, just to be snarky, seems like a bad PR move.

[_fetchface]

So weird. He could have just added a citation and some quote marks...

[_Xenophon]

I wonder if infoplease and patheos would be interested in this discussion? On another note, how quickly can one take down offending blog posts?

Interesting that you should mention that! Peterson has now removed all content of his 2017 plagiarism currently under discussion.

Although the entry is still titled “New find could be oldest evidence of life ever discovered”, it now contains just a snarky admission of plagiarism.

"New find could be oldest evidence of life ever discovered”
March 1, 2017 by Dan Peterson

Hi, Lemmie!

Thanks for your help.

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

That he removed the contents of that entry, including the plagiarism, clearly puts to rest the question of whether Peterson considers a plagiarized blog entry to be plagiarism. Although leaving it up under that title, just to be snarky, seems like a bad PR move.

Usually when you aren't guilty of a thing you erase all the evidence of it, right!?!? Well if the comparison to Ms Jack's work on WS wasn't fitting before it definitely got a little closer now.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Holy crap. Lemmie wasn't kidding.


upload

- Doc

[_Maksutov]

Holy crap. Lemmie wasn't kidding.


upload

- Doc

Busted!!!!

[_Lemmie]

A new version of Peterson's 2019 blog entry, titled An amazing thought: “New find could be oldest evidence of life ever discovered,” is now posted.

A couple of the rock age references have disappeared, there is an explanation for why the moon information was randomly included in re-write 5 or 6, and there is an added reference to a 2015 piece he submitted to DesNews, but the most interesting is this added at the end of version 7:

(The basic story that I tell above relies on the clear and helpful summary given in the article “Origin of Earth” on the “Infoplease” website.)

Earlier I posted information from Infoplease, including directions on how to cite their work, that they require written permission to use their work on the web, and a explicit statement that their work cannot be used to create a derivative product. Here are the relevant parts:

To cite "Origin of Earth." in your work, copy the complete reference below:
"Origin of Earth." Infoplease.
© 2000-2017 Sandbox Networks, Inc., publishing as Infoplease.
12 Mar. 2019 <https://www.infoplease.com/science-health/earth/origin-earth/>....
__________

Infoplease content cannot be used commercially or on the Web without first obtaining our permission....
____________

No Visitor may modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the content, in whole or in part....
_________

https://www.infoplease.com/frequently-a ... rmission30