I wrote that because I've seen plagiarism denied most often by those who have no idea what plagiarism is, then get criticized (indirectly) for believing that Wierwille was nothing but a plagiarist, which I have never, ever said. I think Wierwille wrote plenty that was not plagiarism, and he wrote some that was. He lifted ideas from others, but by itself, that's not plagiarism. Plagiarism is reserved for when he was so lazy he didn't even muster the energy to hide the fact that he was lifting someone else's work without credit.
In the end, the question for us is "so what?" And the answer varies according to the value you place on the CONTENT. Plagiarism does not affect the content of the plagiarized material. It only reflects on the integrity of the writer.
Def,
Your question is valid, and as someone who has criticized the plagiarism, I appreciate the opportunity to make some points a bit more clear (if they were not already).
I can't think of an example. A journalist who reads an article in one newspaper and "cribs" the idea for his own has not done anything wrong, provided that he does his own research, verifies the contents, writes in his own words, etc. In a case like that, it's only plagiarism if the reporter actually copies all or even part of the other article.
Example: I wrote about a man who killed a cop. I learned that the killer was once head of a minor political organization in Texas. I wrote about it. The following day, the Miami Herald wrote an article about the suspect and included the bit about the political organization, which was missing from their previous day's article. There's no question at all that they lifted the idea from my article. But it wasn't plagiarism. They called Texas, verified the fact, got their own quotes, and wrote about it in their own words. That's not only "not wrong," it's absolutely expected.
Two writers of Biblical issues discussing the same subject will write similar things. The CES book "One God and One Lord" was undeniably and irrefutably inspired by JCING and probably lifted many themes, but as a research work it was independent, and relied on sources well beyond Wierwille to make its case (in fact, if I recall correctly, JCING isn't even in the bibliography, which I consider a failing on the authors' part). Point is, One God and One Lord is not plagiarism, nor is the Herald's decision to verify what was in my article.
Scholars have been reprimanded publicly for lifting as little as one line without attribution (Doris Kearns Goodwin, for example). Wierwille did far more than that. But when we think about plagiarism, we should not be thinking along the lines of "Bullinger wrote about four crucified and Wierwille stole that from him." We should be thinking, rather, "Bullinger wrote ABDFGTZ and Wierwille wrote ABDFGTZ without noting that he was quoting Bullinger."
As I said, Wierwille wrote plenty that was not plagiarism. He also wrote plenty that was. In terms of the content of what's written, it makes no difference to me. In terms of Wierwille's integrity, I put it, in my mind, where I think it belongs.
I've never contended with anyone who doesn't care that Wierwille resorted to plagiarism. I only contend with those who deny it. It's not deniable.
I can't give the specifics now, but I remember somebody getting the boot for using unattribyuted thoughts and comments used in a different writer's column.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
10
8
7
Popular Days
Nov 5
9
Dec 17
8
Feb 13
5
Feb 15
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 11 posts
TheInvisibleDan 10 posts
def59 8 posts
TheEvan 7 posts
Popular Days
Nov 5 2003
9 posts
Dec 17 2004
8 posts
Feb 13 2004
5 posts
Feb 15 2004
5 posts
Raf
I wrote that because I've seen plagiarism denied most often by those who have no idea what plagiarism is, then get criticized (indirectly) for believing that Wierwille was nothing but a plagiarist, which I have never, ever said. I think Wierwille wrote plenty that was not plagiarism, and he wrote some that was. He lifted ideas from others, but by itself, that's not plagiarism. Plagiarism is reserved for when he was so lazy he didn't even muster the energy to hide the fact that he was lifting someone else's work without credit.
In the end, the question for us is "so what?" And the answer varies according to the value you place on the CONTENT. Plagiarism does not affect the content of the plagiarized material. It only reflects on the integrity of the writer.
Def,
Your question is valid, and as someone who has criticized the plagiarism, I appreciate the opportunity to make some points a bit more clear (if they were not already).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Raf,
That is Square Level Plumb think'n...
That was a peice i was trying to assemble for a while.
I dig your whole response pre & pro the quote.
Song
Happy Holidays Dude!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
But haven't journalists been fired just for lifting ideas?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I can't think of an example. A journalist who reads an article in one newspaper and "cribs" the idea for his own has not done anything wrong, provided that he does his own research, verifies the contents, writes in his own words, etc. In a case like that, it's only plagiarism if the reporter actually copies all or even part of the other article.
Example: I wrote about a man who killed a cop. I learned that the killer was once head of a minor political organization in Texas. I wrote about it. The following day, the Miami Herald wrote an article about the suspect and included the bit about the political organization, which was missing from their previous day's article. There's no question at all that they lifted the idea from my article. But it wasn't plagiarism. They called Texas, verified the fact, got their own quotes, and wrote about it in their own words. That's not only "not wrong," it's absolutely expected.
Two writers of Biblical issues discussing the same subject will write similar things. The CES book "One God and One Lord" was undeniably and irrefutably inspired by JCING and probably lifted many themes, but as a research work it was independent, and relied on sources well beyond Wierwille to make its case (in fact, if I recall correctly, JCING isn't even in the bibliography, which I consider a failing on the authors' part). Point is, One God and One Lord is not plagiarism, nor is the Herald's decision to verify what was in my article.
Scholars have been reprimanded publicly for lifting as little as one line without attribution (Doris Kearns Goodwin, for example). Wierwille did far more than that. But when we think about plagiarism, we should not be thinking along the lines of "Bullinger wrote about four crucified and Wierwille stole that from him." We should be thinking, rather, "Bullinger wrote ABDFGTZ and Wierwille wrote ABDFGTZ without noting that he was quoting Bullinger."
As I said, Wierwille wrote plenty that was not plagiarism. He also wrote plenty that was. In terms of the content of what's written, it makes no difference to me. In terms of Wierwille's integrity, I put it, in my mind, where I think it belongs.
I've never contended with anyone who doesn't care that Wierwille resorted to plagiarism. I only contend with those who deny it. It's not deniable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Of course,
a whole OTHER issue is just how much "writing" vpw did on
books like JCOPS and JCOP versus slapping his name on
what the staff did...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Yeah WW, you do see quite a difference in style between the Blue Book and CSBP on one hand and JCING, JCOPS & JCOP on the other hand.
Maybe he just took some creative writing classes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Mabe he learnt how to write like L. Ron Hubbard...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Raf
I can't give the specifics now, but I remember somebody getting the boot for using unattribyuted thoughts and comments used in a different writer's column.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TOMMYZ
Since you guys were referencing this we may as well bring it up to the top of the pile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.