update - Wed 26/10/11: after I publicly revealed late on Monday (24th) on the NSS Facebook page concerning TAB's habits, his whole blog was set to private by Tuesday (25th) afternoon and his recent comments on his Facebook profile concerning 'How awesome it is when groups like the NSS like your musings' were removed. I don't wish to put ideas into others' heads but that implies to me that he's either worried he's done something wrong, or knows he has. I invite him to comment on it, but I imagine it'll be along the lines of "I didn't realise what I was doing was wrong." Not that it matters any more really.
The last entry in this blog was written back in August. I decided to publish it today after a new article appeared on TAB's blog that was more than three quarters plagiarised/lifted material. While I will admit that TAB this time included about 4 reference links, he did not quote from those sources properly nor did he include the numerous (more than 10) other sources I found he had directly copied.
I hadn't 'gone public' with my findings as I wanted to see whether or not he would hold to his new "Blog Ethics" which he posted after someone pointed out that stealing material and passing it off as your own frankly isn't 'on'. He seemed to understand that plagiarism and pretending that other's words were your own isn't great or honest practice. So I thought he'd stop. Nope.
On Saturday he posted a new article called: Freedom of Expression and the Public Consultation on Police Powers. If you look carefully you'll see about four references spread throughout the piece with some sentences in quotation marks. Also he links to a couple of documents at the end of the article and the NSS and BHA websites.
Of course I did my own research to find out where he might have got some inspiration. To cut to the chase: the article is about 1500 words. I reckon over 1000 are quoted verbatim without attribution. In total around 1300 words are quoted or 'influenced'. To be fair TAB does (incorrectly) reference some work.
I don't understand the thought processes at work here. At one point it seems he understands that copying and pasting text needs to have a reference. So he does:
I consider that this would be a “human rights enhancing measure and would remove a risk that these provisions may be applied in a manner which is disproportionate and incompatible with the right to freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 of The European Convention of Human Rights and The Common Law.”
Notice the quotation marks, but without a reference (he does link it earlier in the article)? Well the full quote he's using is this:
We consider that this would be a human rights enhancing measure and would remove a risk that these provisions may be applied in a manner which is disproportionate and incompatible with the right to freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 ECHR and the common law.So he's directly quoting much more than he's indicated but has also changed the word "We" to "I" to make it seem like it's his own work whilst at the same time making it clear it isn't. I'm confused, particularly as just before that he copy and pastes the preceding sentence without any indication that they're not his own words. But I shall let you all see for yourself.
The breakdown is a very large image shown below - click here for the bigger version. The article is on the left with the corresponding source material over on the right. It's a little ungainly, but that's the easiest way I found to work with the material in word! Also to prove this is the actual article, here is a screen grab of it from TAB's blog.
Red text is copied verbatim, blue text is 'influenced' or slightly altered wording, black is his own words (or I couldn't find a direct source, at least). Green is forgivably/correctly quoted text. To make things easier, the listed sources are included in the post script below.
Again I have to say that I have done this because I do not think it fair that people get credit for something that is not their own work. TAB obviously does his research and meshes it all together well, but that is not the point: They are decidedly not his own words and it is unfair that he receives attention and praise when he does not deserve it. After he was rumbled (gently) back in August, I had hoped he would be more honest. Hopefully he will now get the message that this sort of thing is not really acceptable.
Again I have to say that I have done this because I do not think it fair that people get credit for something that is not their own work. TAB obviously does his research and meshes it all together well, but that is not the point: They are decidedly not his own words and it is unfair that he receives attention and praise when he does not deserve it. After he was rumbled (gently) back in August, I had hoped he would be more honest. Hopefully he will now get the message that this sort of thing is not really acceptable.
___________________
Sources:
[1] – Peter Tatchell: Hate Speech versus Free Speech
[2] – NSS: Government consults on removing ‘insulting’ speech from Public Order Act.
[2] – NSS: Government consults on removing ‘insulting’ speech from Public Order Act.
[3] – Human Rights Joint Committee: 11 Reform of the Public Order Act: Insulting words or behaviour and freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR)
[4] - Caslon Analytics blasphemy
[5] – NSS: Street Preacher charged for spouting against gays.
[6] – Daily Hansard: 28th October 2009
[4] - Caslon Analytics blasphemy
[5] – NSS: Street Preacher charged for spouting against gays.
[6] – Daily Hansard: 28th October 2009
[7] – NSS: Freedom of Expression
[8] - Submission from the British Humanist Association to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion (Quickview PDF (google docs)) (page 84, sect 35.4)
[8] - Submission from the British Humanist Association to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion (Quickview PDF (google docs)) (page 84, sect 35.4)
[8a] – As above: Page 81, sect 32.1 (from “Strength in Diversity” para 2.2)
[9] – Peter Tatchell: CPS drop case against street preacher
[9a] – The Christian Institute: Gay rights campaigner defends street preacher (also widely quoted)
[9a] – The Christian Institute: Gay rights campaigner defends street preacher (also widely quoted)
[10] – Govt. Reply: Demonstrating respect for rights? A human rights approach to policing protest
[11] – Daily Hansard: 24th March 2009
[13] – Daily Hansard: 1st March 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment