She apparently plagiarized another 250+ words from the same source[1] in addition to the 120-word paragraph indicated above and various passages from wikipedia[2].
I work in the area of thin film materials research, and I can confirm that boiler plate text describing methods is often copy pasted by academic researchers working together, since it's nearly the least important part of a paper.
Plagiarism of the discussion section and analysis would be one thing, but a list of methods or materials is a nothing burger.
(it's an analogous to listing the constituents of your bread recipe, and it's compassion on your reader not to rewrite these constituents in a new way every time.)
I saw her speak once at a technology and art conference and I remember getting the sense that much of what she was saying was hot air skillfully applied to draw in grants from companies who want to have partnerships with the prestigious brand of MIT.
So you're admitting this has nothing to do with actual concerns about academic integrity, and instead is about an "oncoming storm" to purge woke social justice lunatics?
Sounds about right. Glad you have no "agenda" though.
When the Greek soldiers emerged from the Trojan Horse, declaring 'this isn't a gift' would be a monumental understatement. Continuing to dwell on such an observation is akin to debating the quality of the woodwork while the city falls around you.
It's a distraction, and frankly, it's preferable to keep it that way. Better to have the enemy class lost in trivialities than rallying to mount a defense.
There’s a sort of nazi propagandist that just openly tweets out his plans to bamboozle people into supporting his agenda. When it works out he gets interviewed and praised. We’re way, way, way past good faith on a lot of issues
He’s very popular and the Harvard stuff is just the latest. He’s openly on Twitter chronicled his project of getting people to lump every bit of political correctness that they find irritating under the umbrella of “critical race theory”, and then once he succeeded at that pivoted to doing the same thing for DEI.
Funnily enough, as an aside, I can’t imagine an easier place to propagate his sort of nonsense than a large, highly visible discussion forum that codifies assuming good faith into the rules and makes it explicitly against the rules to point out astroturfing, even if it’s obvious. Any platform that prides itself on an outdated idea of neutrality is easily weaponized by these bad actors.
I haven't read the details on the recent plagiarism dramas, either Claudine Gay's or Neri Oxman's, but does anyone know how original were the parts they plagiarized?
Eg, was it a key original idea central to the work's thesis, in which they may have stolen someone else's breakthrough insight? Was it an important bit of supporting information, but not a core part of the thesis? Or was it background/extraneous stuff that's not really important?
Every example I saw of Gay’s plagiarism actually directly cited the work she pulled from, she just didn’t put quotations around them. There was no way you’d read the passages and not understand where the ideas came from, you’d just have thought Gay rephrased them, which she didn’t.
Maybe there were other more egregious examples I didn’t see, but that seems like an editing or style error more than what I’d consider plagiarism.
(Obviously students, who are being assessed directly on the writing itself, have very rigid requirements they need to meet)
So … there’s millions spent to give profs the technology to perform plagiarism checks on their students (with all the annoyance, false positives, etc) but nobody runs the same technology against the universities own archive corpus.
Very hilarious that her husband started this slap-fight just to shut down critics of Israel and now it's the only thing that shows up when you look at his wifes name.
23 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 61.1 ms ] thread[1]https://twitter.com/sTeamTraen/status/1745950571687792967
[2]https://www.businessinsider.com/neri-oxman-plagiarize-wikipe...
Plagiarism of the discussion section and analysis would be one thing, but a list of methods or materials is a nothing burger.
(it's an analogous to listing the constituents of your bread recipe, and it's compassion on your reader not to rewrite these constituents in a new way every time.)
as a engineering consultant, the most valuable assets are the reports I can pull and reuses.
while original research and academics should reference text, even M&P should reference where it came from.
knowing what deviated and what adheres to any given procedures are still important.
if this were some consultant report, then go nuts.
also, keep in mind the context that this person, her husband and I believe Harvard are a discussion about "plagiarism"
My colleague (another grad student) innocently showed them their work and was very open with them.
Sounds about right. Glad you have no "agenda" though.
It's a distraction, and frankly, it's preferable to keep it that way. Better to have the enemy class lost in trivialities than rallying to mount a defense.
There’s a sort of nazi propagandist that just openly tweets out his plans to bamboozle people into supporting his agenda. When it works out he gets interviewed and praised. We’re way, way, way past good faith on a lot of issues
Funnily enough, as an aside, I can’t imagine an easier place to propagate his sort of nonsense than a large, highly visible discussion forum that codifies assuming good faith into the rules and makes it explicitly against the rules to point out astroturfing, even if it’s obvious. Any platform that prides itself on an outdated idea of neutrality is easily weaponized by these bad actors.
Eg, was it a key original idea central to the work's thesis, in which they may have stolen someone else's breakthrough insight? Was it an important bit of supporting information, but not a core part of the thesis? Or was it background/extraneous stuff that's not really important?
Maybe there were other more egregious examples I didn’t see, but that seems like an editing or style error more than what I’d consider plagiarism.
(Obviously students, who are being assessed directly on the writing itself, have very rigid requirements they need to meet)