This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Such is the case outside the classroom as well. Several weeks ago, when I joined the chorus of protest against Dennis Wiese's plagiarism, I wasn't trying to enter the character-assassination game that seems so popular among the blogorazzi. I don't know Mr. Wiese personally, but I do know he's a fellow Democrat, so I at least have no political reason to attack him. I was simply calling the public's attention to a crime and urging my fellow citizens (especially you young folks out there, with your oh-so-malleable minds) to recognize and avoid similar sins. The Madville Times isn't about personal attacks; it's about "articulating moral truth" (a cool phrase I got from Jim Wallis discussing "prophetic politics" in his 2005 book God's Politics, p72).
The commitment to moral truth now leads me to throw the plagiarism flag at two local figures: Lake Area Improvement Corporation Executive Director Dwaine Chapel and Madison Chamber of Commerce Director Sascha Albrecht. I don't do so eagerly. Mrs. Madville Times and I have had a number of useful, informative conversations with Dwaine and Sascha. We know they share our commitment to improving Madison, and they work hard in their jobs to make good things happen for our town. We support their efforts to energize the downtown retail sector, to beautify the city, and to expand economic opportunities for everyone in the Madison area.
Nonetheless, we can't let even our closest friends and allies plagiarize without comment.
On page 4 of the July 2007 Chamber of Commerce newsletter, which circulated this week in Tuesday's Madison Daily Leader (it might have been Wednesday's -- Madville Times Jr. scattered the papers before I could see which was which), I found Dwaine Chapel's regular "The LAIC Perspective" column, tagged as "By Dwaine Chapel." I started scanning for Dwaine's usual syntax (he tends to overuse the passive voice, a common error among business and administration folks). Instead, I found an article that had a little more journalistic crackle than usual. Mrs. Madville Times got the same impression. We also noticed the strange absence of any specific reference to Madison businesses or economic trends. It was all national data.
So we hit the Internet. Sure enough, there it was, Dwaine's entire article, verbatim, from John Rees, Junior Project Manager, "The Information Technology Sector Is Back," AngelouEconomics, June 2007. Note that Dwaine's article begins with a citation of sorts:
According to John Rees, Junior Project Manager, AngelouEconomics, the information technology sector is back. Having experienced severe declines in the wake of the dotcom collapse, the information technology industry has witness a turnaround in recent years....Dwaine's use of Rees's text has two problems:
- The text lacks a full citation of the original article. We get the name of the original author, his qualifications, and his organization, but no indication of where or when his text was published. Here on the blog, I try to give at least author, title, date, and page, the basics for any good citation, but I have the advantage online of being able to simply giving readers a link that will take them straight to the original source, which is what a complete citation facilitates. In print, writers have to give that complete citation.
- More importantly, the text lacks quote marks to show where Rees's actual words begin and end. In this case, everything after "According to John Rees, Junior Project Manager, AngelouEconomics" should have been in quote marks, which writers aren't supposed to do anyway. Without the quote marks, it sounded like Dwaine was mentioning an expert in the field who backed up his assertion that the infotech sector is rebounding. "According to" doesn't grant permission to copy an entire article verbatim; it simply indicates that the next sentence or two consists of information the author has borrowed from a cited source to support the author's own argument.
Another, stranger form of plagiarism appears on page 2 of the July Chamber newsletter. In her regular "Note from the Director" column, Sascha Albrecht speaks of community image and eyesores. "We constantly talk of eyesores in Madison, and I imagine we always will," Sascha says. She does strike a positive note, indicating that "we are beginning to turn the corner with new ordinances and better enforcement by local officials."
Apparently this is a wide corner: in her "Note from the Director" column in the August 2006 Chamber newsletter, Sascha indicated that "we are beginning to turn the corner with new ordinances and better enforcement by local officials."
Uh oh: Mrs. Madville Times thought something sounded familiar. Sure enough. Indeed, we found that the August 2006 and July 2007 "Notes from the Director" are identical. Sascha plagiarized herself.
Wait a minute, you say: "plagiarized herself"?! Plagiarism is stealing someone else's ideas; how can you steal from yourself? Believe it or not, self-plagiarism exists. Very simply, if an author republishes earlier work without indicating where and when it was originally published, that's plagiarism.
Self-plagiarism is a big deal in academic publishing and journalism. In academic publishing, a researcher who submits previously published work for republication is expected to acknowledge the material's past publication. Otherwise, publishers who don't know the work has already been published may publish it thinking they are publishing new work, thus depriving other researchers with actual new work of valuable publication space in the academic journals. In journalism, a reporter or columnist is generally under contract to regularly produce new content. The reporter or columnist who takes a shortcut by simply resubmitting an old article or column for republication short-changes his or her employer and readers.
Sascha could easily have avoided this self-plagiarism with a simple acknowledgment that she was reprinting an earlier article. The article certainly bears repeating; her comments about community image and eyesores are as valid now as last year. A simple citation -- "Hey! Community image is important, so give this essay from last year another reading" -- would have avoided the bad impression that self-plagiarism makes.
I can form all sorts of hypotheses as to how these plagiarized articles came about. Crazy Days (hey -- what happened to Beadle Days?) is just a couple weeks away, so Sascha is likely working doubletime getting those promotions ready. Dwaine has to figure out how to spend the $2.3 million in the Forward Madison fund, so that probably doesn't leave a lot of time for writing. They're just good folks trying to meet deadlines and do good for the community.
But plagiarism is plagiarism, no matter why or where it appears. Whether we're talking mutli-million dollar book contracts or local Chamber newsletters, authors have an obligation to themselves, their employers, and their readers not to plagiarize.
Cory,
ReplyDeleteWould you be so kind as to give a review of the Wallis book? I've walked past it on the shelves a few times and have been tempted to pick it up, but have waited to hear from someone I know to give a review. You're the first person who's admitted to reading it. You've got my email.
By the way, as a completely off topic comment from this post, thanks for your death penalty posts.
And since we're off topic... How was Lincoln?
ReplyDeleteLincoln was all right -- I didn't catch anyone plagiarizing, and they haven't killed anyone down there this week.
ReplyDeleteYou were down here in Lincoln? I've come to like it here, although I still despise downtown, and the politicians constantly annoy.
ReplyDeleteDid you say hi to Ging?
I don't believe someone who writes an article for a local publication that doesn't meet your exact journalistic requirements regarding plagiarism specifics makes them a violator. After all, his source is noted, so there is no intent to steal, and to imply that one can plagiarize themselves is absurd. Not all of us are highly intelligent and journalistically advanced with the educational opportunities you have been blessed with. Tolerance, my boy, tolerance. Don't sweat the small stuff 'cause you're not going to change the world at the tips of your fingers. Better to get your hands dirty and get involved than to sit back and critique our leaders if you wish to implement change.
ReplyDeleteYour excuses, Anonymous, sound a lot like the enabling and evasive excuses offered by students and parents when faced with plagiarism. When I'd catch students plagiarizing, their favorite tactic was to try to shift the issue to anything other than the fact of the plagiarism itself.
ReplyDelete"a local publication that doesn't meet your exact journalistic requirements regarding plagiarism specifics"
They're not "my" standards. This isn't some personal issue. And they aren't just "journalistic" standards obliging only a few professionals in one field to properly cite their sources. Plagiarism is an objective issue of honesty that applies to all writers and speakers.
"his source is noted, so there is no intent to steal"
I make no claim to know the intent of the writers. I look purely at the text on the page. His source is not noted as the source of every word verbatim on the page. When you cite someone verbatim, you use quote marks. That's a basic rule of writing for everyone.
"and to imply that one can plagiarize themselves is absurd."
I know, it strikes me as odd, too, but the source I cite says otherwise. For further discussion, see these articles at Wikipedia (which presents both sides!), John Quiggin's blog, and the Association for Computing Machinery. If nothing else, these articles and others you may find through a Google search, will demonstrate that plagiarism is not merely a pet peeve, but a serious issue in the minds of numerous writers, teachers, and other folks.
"Not all of us are highly intelligent and journalistically advanced with the educational opportunities you have been blessed with."
Um, how is this comment relevant to the discussion? My educational background has nothing to do with whether or not the articles at hand were plagiarized. Plus, our man Jon Hunter would take great unbrage at the suggestion that this blog or any other is "journalistically advanced."
"Tolerance, my boy, tolerance."
Sorry, not of plagiarism. There's education at stake. I have spent too much time telling kids it does matter to look at adults doing it and say it doesn't.
"Better to get your hands dirty and get involved than to sit back and critique our leaders if you wish to implement change."
Again, Anonymous changes the issue to questioning my personal involvement in the community rather than looking at the plagiarism itself. No citizen has to do anything other than be a citizen to have the right to criticize what is going on in his community. (I'd prefer a citizen be educated first, by experience or books or both, but even that requirement is not written into the First Amendment.) Nonetheless, if we accept Anonymous's apparent thesis that you must "get your hands dirty" to earn the right to criticize public affairs, I would suggest that a career in education ought to count for something in the effort to "implement change" at the most fundamental level.
Besides, I'm not criticizing any of Dwaine and Sascha's efforts to "implement change." Mrs. Madville Times and I support their efforts to make Madison even better. We want downtown business and Crazy Days to expand and improve. We look forward to seeing how the Forward Madison funds will be spent (and we will speak up as to how well we see it being spent).
But none of those issues change the following relevant facts:
--Two plagiarized articles appeared in the July 2007 Chamber newsletter.
--One column was a verbatim reprint of an online article. The column failed to properly cite the source and created the incorrect impression that it had been written by the author in the byline.
--The other column was an unattributed reprint of previously published work. The column carried no citation of that earlier publication, thus creating the incorrect impression that it was a new column.
--Plagiarism is not "small stuff" that we shouldn't sweat. It is serious, in that it creates false impressions and, when caught, a bad image for all involved.
--Plagiarism is bad. Everyone -- not just fancy-pants journalists and academics, but students, parents, businesspeople, politicians -- needs to understand that. Parents have an obligation to their children and their schools not to minimize the significance of plagiarism. Everyone who takes up a pen and puts text in the public domain has an obligation to respect text, cite sources fully, and avoid any appearance of dishonesty toward his or her readers.
Whoops! Typo! That should be umbrage, not unbrage. Jon Hunter was right....
ReplyDeleteIf I say the same thing, word for word, to somebody that I said somewhere else 2 months ago. I probably don't tell them the thoughts aren't new. Am I being deceptive? Am I wronging them? Why should the standard be different when putting it on paper? "Self-plagiarism" is just lazy. nothing worse.
ReplyDeleteThe other case is plagiarism, though I would probably give him slack since it does note the author, just poorly. It is more like bad writing than theft. If he had been wanting to claim credit for the ideas, then why would he put the guys name in the article at all?
"Why should the standard be different when putting it on paper?"
ReplyDeleteEverday conversation is different from the published word, just as there are different standards to informal and formal conversation. There are words and ways of speaking that you can use in a chat in the park that you cannot use in a job interview or business meeting. Yes, it's extra work to avoid slang and cite sources (or even use sources), but that's the price you pay to be taken seriously in different realms of communication.
"Self-plagiarism is just lazy, nothing worse."
I haven't wanted to beat this drum too loudly, but consider: the communication in question projects community image. Even if the communication projected only laziness, that's still plenty to warrant avoiding it in the future. There is no up side to projecting that image.
There are many reasons not to plagiarize. When I teach writing, I tell students, "Plagiarism is lying, cheating, and stealing," and hope that the simple moral point will carry the day and prevent them from plagiarism. However, if I have to get practical, I'll put it this way: when you write, you create words that remain in public view. Conversations can fade from memory and leave no trace, but a written document can last and circulate. People read those documents, and for every apologist who, like Phaedrus and yesterday's Anonymous, seems inclined to laugh off plagiarism, there is another reader -- possibly a potential visitor, resident, employer, or investor -- who takes plagiarism seriously and will view such lapses (two in one publication!) as negative indicators about the organizations and the community that produced them.
When you enter the public realm an put your name to your comments (unlike my various anonymous and pseudonymous commenters, who evidently prefer to avoid such burdens), you take on added responsibilities to preserve the integrity of the sources you use and the text you yourself produce, for the sake of your image and that of whatever organization you work for.
"The other case is plagiarism, though I would probably give him slack since it does note the author, just poorly."
No, it's still a serious mistake. Again, I'm not fretting over anyone's intent. I'm loking strictly at the text on the page. Any teacher, writer, or editor will tell you that the citation given in Chapel's column comes nowhere near permitting a full reprint of the John Rees article. If you want to reprint eight full paragraphs with no commentary of your own, you do not write "by me" at the top and slap an "according to..." on the front. You leave off your byline and write "Reprinted from..." followed by a full citation: author, title, date, and page. What's so hard about that?
Let me emphasize one more time: this whole post is not about playing gotcha, getting anyone in trouble, labeling anyone a "violator" or "offender," or throwing a monkey wrench in anyone's efforts to improve the community. Reread the beginning of the post, and you'll see that. As we promote our community, we must expect high standards from everyone. In the competition for businesses and investments, we have to be able to show that we seek excellence in everything we do. Folks looking to invest their money and move their businesses and families expect nothing less.
You have a few typo errors in your last post. Do some deep breathing and slow down. Plagiarism may be a passion for you, but the majority were probably more interested in simply passing the class than clinging to literary correctness. I didn't look up the definition of "Plagiarism" but feel it means taking the words of someone else and claiming them as your own. If that assumed definition is even close, neither of your subjects truly committed plagiarism. You may need to open up your parameters of what is acceptable. Have you ever considered writing a column for Mr. Hunter's newspaper each week. At least there would be something worth reading. Probably too "hot" for Jon's elderly audience?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, my mouth runs faster than my fingers sometimes. I'm sloppy sometimes, but I'm also not getting paid for my writing. Were Jon Hunter or any other interested party to pay me for my writing, I would be all the more diligent in checking sources and revising text for grammar and typos. Anon, feel free to forward your opinion to our man Hunter and recommend that he might stimulate readership by hiring me as a columnist. While you're at it, you might ask for Mr. Hunter's professional opinion on plagiarism. How would he have responded if one of his writers had plagiarized in the same way as either of the subjects of my original post? Would they have remained employed? And how does Jon Hunter feel about "recycling" editorials? His perspective might be quite enlightening.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate the problem with Mr. Chapel's plagiarized column, compare what wasn't really his work with this online reprinting of my own writing. The Meadowlark Project's Ryan Aasheim republishes in their entirety both of my blog entries (July 4 and July 10) on the Meadowlark Project's visit to Madison. At the top of the reprint of the July 4 article, he puts in bold type, "The following is a blog entry from "Madville Times" by Cory Allen Heidelberger of Lake Herman, SD. To access the blog, go to" and then gives the complete URL and a link to the original text. Aasheim offers a similarly clear credit and link at the top of the July 10 reprint. Neither reprint uses quote marks, but in accordance with style rules for for big quotes or full reprints, Aasheim correctly formats the article with white space between his opening credit and the reprinted text. For online purposes, Mr. Aasheim has avoided charges of plagiarism. Mr. Chapel failed to (1) make an explicit declaration that his column was actually a verbatim reprint of another writer's work, (2) offer the full citation of his source, and (3) offer any formatting -- quote marks, white space, or hanging indent -- to distinguish the reprinted text from his "According to..." tag.
ReplyDeleteSee? Avoiding plagiarism is easy. Cite your sources. If in doubt, be extra careful and extra clear.
As someone who is so very devoted to Madison and the community shouldn't you be doing your best to support those who work tirelessly to make Madison a better place to live and work? It seems a bit contradictory to say that the Chamber Director is doing a great job but then you immediately go into tearing her down. A prime example is associating her with somone who is actually stealing another person's work when in fact she is just submitting her own work. This particular column is more than applicable today as it was back in August 2006. Sure, I understand that there are going to be critics out there, but do we really need to nit-pick at every little thing, especially when it can, in fact, interfer with the image and betterment of Madison?
ReplyDeleteAgain, none of this is intended as a personal attack or an effort to tear anyone down (that's a game for the rest of the blogosphere, not this blog). The criticism offered here is an effort to promote excellence in everything Madison does. Plagiarism projects an image of something less than excellence. One person's nitpicking is another's constructive criticism. We can hush up our faults and hope no one notices (never a successful strategy in the long run) or we can openly acknowledge them and try to fix them.
ReplyDelete