[Vision2020] What Kind of Plagiarist is Nick Gier?

[Doug Jones]

Narrowing the Options: What Kind of Plagiarist is Nick Gier?

Now comes the backpeddling and hypocrisy, which is the point of my 
exercise. Intolerista double-standards are as shameless as they are 
hilarious -- obvious to all but themselves.

Well. . . we hear, Nick's plagiarism didn't involve money -- except we 
forget he was paid to teach this class at the UofI (Wilson never got 
royalties from his booklet).

Oh, Nick's plagiarism wasn't disseminated to anyone -- except UI 
students and the whole internet.

Oh, Nick's notes never involve citations, they're just reminders --  
except if you look at his other notes, plenty of citations.

Oh, Nick's plagiarism is petty and trivial --  except we've been told 
it's a matter of principle not quantity.

Oh, Nick is a scholar, he always cites the source in the lecture itself 
-- except that's what Steve Wilkins said, too.

Nick himself says his "lifting" (his word) was just of something small 
like a list of Bible books or a single word "alas" -- except  that's not 
true: look at the example -- someone else's opening wording, 
unattributed -- so now plagiarism doesn't count if it's just a 
short-short theft from another author.

Imagine a UofI student saying he "only" lifted one sentence ("and just 
ignore my other copying and pasting").

Nick's own criterion is to "condemn the use of authors' words without 
proper attribution" -- with no limits on length, income, or medium. I'm 
just asking Nick to live up to his own vaunted principle. That's not 
asking too much. Where is the condemnation?

Nick now admits "lifting" the passage in question; it wasn't even an 
editing mistake. He's ruled out, then, two of the five kinds of 
plagiarist in his list. So the question remains: what kind of plagiarist 
is Nick Gier?


Doug Jones


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051013/21b3934b/attachment.htm