"He was shown to have made misleading edits on Wikipedia"
"In July 2011, both Private Eye and Damian Thompson in his Telegraph blog accused Hari of inventing an atrocity for his Orwell Prize winning article on the Central African Republic."
"The Council concluded that the article contained inaccuracies"
So not 'making up' but 'invented', 'inaccurate', and 'misleading'.
This is off topic. Nothing that Hari did in the past invalidates his work on the drug war.
There's a pattern on the internet where as soon as someone's name is mentioned, people trot out the #1 worst meme about them and act like it ends the discussion. It's as if there's a big hash table in the sky that maps public figures' names to most-rage-inducing detail, and when a key in the hash table shows up, someone invariably rushes in with the value. That is a Pavolvian reflex, not thoughtful discussion. We're going for thoughtful discussion here.
I'm against permanently "flipping the bozo bit" on any source, and yes, the grandparent post's pure-shunning against-the-person is both unhelpful and corrosive.
But there's a case to be made that the extent of Hari's prior dramatic fabrications still hasn't been recognized, and that he still tends to embellish details in more recent work:
(For me, a compelling excerpt from his book a few months ago – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8919880 – seemed vague and jumbled on timelines enough for me to wonder about the trustworthiness of Hari as a narrator... even though I'm naturally sympathetic to criticisms of the drug war and drug-warriors.)
As wrong as it is to say Hari "is" inherently something bad, it should be fair to remind the unaware of what he once-upon-a-time did via his reporting, and that those who are conservative with their trust may still want to take his most poignant reporting with a grain of salt.
Perhaps you don't need to dismiss his arguments outright, but you should definitely examine the claims of a known plagiarist and liar a lot more closely than someone with a relatively unblemished record.
dang, i know it's hardly news that everyone thinks you're doing a great job as moderator. but i just have to say, with this particular response, holy cow, you've really outdone yourself.
all of us see comments here that give us a faintly icky feeling, but it's pretty much only you who is able to put into words exactly what it is that's so icky about them. my hat is off to you, man. (absolutely no sarcasm intended, by the way.)
Oryou could, y'know, judge him based on what he's currently doing rather than his bouts of stupidity. What he did was stupid (but not particularly nasty, or evil or whatever), but he then went and worked his arse off. And fair enough, when I hadn't bothered to check any of this, I had the exact same reaction you did, but the book seemed pretty good on first read (not blindingly amazing, but good), as are the interviews he's done to support it. Interesting, well researched, dense with detail.
Given the subject matter and its broad implications, I would most definitely give him the time of day.
Lets spend the 21st century cleaning up the incarceration mess of the 20th, and start looking addiction from the perspective of science, rather than criminal justice.
While it's worth noting Hari's previous problems, deciding to simply not give him the time of day is black-and-white thinking. His current work would better be judged on its own merit (with an eye to possible issues based on the author's previous issues) and not summarily dismissed.
Chasing the Scream is an excellent book and is thoroughly footnooted and referenced to combat Hari's prior history of troubles. Highly recommended if you are frustrated with the WOD.
Trust is not what makes a claim true or valuable, and dismissing progressive, pragmatic, and falsifiable claims purely based on trust is naive prejudice. Even scientists check their own work because perception is a crapshoot.
16 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 47.9 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari#Plagiarism_and_Wik...
The premise of the thing is that he's taking stuff out of other peoples books anyway :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari#Plagiarism_and_Wik...:
"He was shown to have made misleading edits on Wikipedia"
"In July 2011, both Private Eye and Damian Thompson in his Telegraph blog accused Hari of inventing an atrocity for his Orwell Prize winning article on the Central African Republic."
"The Council concluded that the article contained inaccuracies"
So not 'making up' but 'invented', 'inaccurate', and 'misleading'.
The guy's a horrible fraud and liar.
There's a pattern on the internet where as soon as someone's name is mentioned, people trot out the #1 worst meme about them and act like it ends the discussion. It's as if there's a big hash table in the sky that maps public figures' names to most-rage-inducing detail, and when a key in the hash table shows up, someone invariably rushes in with the value. That is a Pavolvian reflex, not thoughtful discussion. We're going for thoughtful discussion here.
But there's a case to be made that the extent of Hari's prior dramatic fabrications still hasn't been recognized, and that he still tends to embellish details in more recent work:
http://www.jeremy-duns.com/blog/2014/9/7/kdgwxcbsned1rknh0h3...
(For me, a compelling excerpt from his book a few months ago – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8919880 – seemed vague and jumbled on timelines enough for me to wonder about the trustworthiness of Hari as a narrator... even though I'm naturally sympathetic to criticisms of the drug war and drug-warriors.)
As wrong as it is to say Hari "is" inherently something bad, it should be fair to remind the unaware of what he once-upon-a-time did via his reporting, and that those who are conservative with their trust may still want to take his most poignant reporting with a grain of salt.
all of us see comments here that give us a faintly icky feeling, but it's pretty much only you who is able to put into words exactly what it is that's so icky about them. my hat is off to you, man. (absolutely no sarcasm intended, by the way.)
(Edit for extraneous 'the')
Lets spend the 21st century cleaning up the incarceration mess of the 20th, and start looking addiction from the perspective of science, rather than criminal justice.