Copying is the sincerest form of flattery?
From Friday's Wall Street Journal, an article by Mike Cox on the DC gun ban notes that:
From a piece that I wrote in 2004
This involves only three sentences that total 172 words in the piece, but it is still a little irritating. There were two changes in what I wrote: 1) because three years have gone by since I wrote the original piece the "almost 30 years" that I wrote was changed to "30 years" and 2) "fell from 37 to 27" was changed to "fell to 27 from 37." Otherwise it was identical. The first change is most troublesome because it indicates that Cox (or someone who wrote it for him) probably looked at what I wrote and the date on it in order to make the change.
This is getting to be a fairly common "crime" these days for example with Law Professor Ian Ayres being one of the more recent people caught:
Yet, as some have noted in Ayres' case, "The problem with [Ayres'] explanation---whether used by Ayres or the others---is that it explains how a verbatim quotation can end up unattributed but is not so credible in explaining how an almost-verbatim paraphrase ends up unattributed. . . . But paraphrases in which the sentence structure is altered ever so slightly is much harder to explain as the result of inadvertence."
Crime rose significantly after the gun ban went into effect. In the five years before the 1976 ban, the murder rate fell to 27 from 37 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose to 35. In fact, while murder rates have varied over time, during the 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.
From a piece that I wrote in 2004
Crime rose significantly after the gun ban went into effect. In the five years before Washington's ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. . . . In fact, while murder rates have varied over time, during the almost 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.
This involves only three sentences that total 172 words in the piece, but it is still a little irritating. There were two changes in what I wrote: 1) because three years have gone by since I wrote the original piece the "almost 30 years" that I wrote was changed to "30 years" and 2) "fell from 37 to 27" was changed to "fell to 27 from 37." Otherwise it was identical. The first change is most troublesome because it indicates that Cox (or someone who wrote it for him) probably looked at what I wrote and the date on it in order to make the change.
This is getting to be a fairly common "crime" these days for example with Law Professor Ian Ayres being one of the more recent people caught:
“Several passages in Yale Law School professor Ian Ayres ... new book are unattributed verbatim reproductions or nearly identical paraphrases of passages from various newspaper and magazine articles published in the last twenty years, an investigation by the [Yale Daily] News has shown."
Yet, as some have noted in Ayres' case, "The problem with [Ayres'] explanation---whether used by Ayres or the others---is that it explains how a verbatim quotation can end up unattributed but is not so credible in explaining how an almost-verbatim paraphrase ends up unattributed. . . . But paraphrases in which the sentence structure is altered ever so slightly is much harder to explain as the result of inadvertence."
Labels: IanAyres, Other, plagiarism
posted by John Lott at 6:01 PM
6 Comments:
That's an automatic F and referral to the dean for possible expulsion.
I am with Kris. In my classes, that is a plagiarism bust.
I hope John Lott sees my comment here. I wrote to the Jess Bravin at WSJ after his article on the Supreme Court. I was thanking him for portraying things fairly and other issues, but I mentioned John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" in my e-mail dated Nov 21st. That article was followed by Mike Cox... Possibly just a coincidence? Everyone can form their own speculations on this correlation...
I wrote a follow up e-mail on Nov 21st to Jess Bravin at WSJ after his prior article on the Supreme Court in which I mentioned John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime. Perhaps it is a coincidence that Mike Cox heard about it, but you can form your own opinion.
Dear Anonymous:
Thanks, but the WSJ is a big place and I don't believe that they were responsible for the sentences being placed in the piece.
Cases like this really annoy me. Though it seems likely that there was at least some amount of copying, it is unlikely that anything is going to come of it. The amount is too small to prove definitively, it you wanted to sue over the matter your expenses would far outstrip any potential gains and it is unlikely that the WSJ is going to take this matter seriously.
This isn't to say that there wasn't copying or that the WSJ is bad, but that a few sentences in a lengthier article is a tough plagiarism to prove, at least far enough to hurt a man's career.
If this comes up repeatedly, I would expect something more.
Still, the best that can be hoped here is for some kind of rebuke from the editors at the paper. Even that is unlikely. However, they will be watching him much more closely in the future, that much is certain.
My sympathies go out to you for your frustration!
Post a Comment
<< Home