Weird Bit of Plagiarism and Cover-Up

I don't know what lessons to draw from this. But there are some wrecks on the street that I simply must inspect.

Since I am scrupulous about revealing my own sources, I will start with that. I learned of the below weird bit of plagiarism only quite recently, from Felix Salmon's column at Reuters. (Yes, that entry is actually by Ben Walsh, but the column as a whole has Felix' name on it.)

It appears that an ESPN.com columnist, Lynn Hoppes, has been engaging in blatant plagiarism. From wikipedia no less. (Gee, that's such an obscure site! who would ever know???)

Isaac Rauch, of DeadSpin, called out Hoppes on this back in July. In case you don't want to follow that link, here are a couple of Rauch's examples:

Wikipedia on boxing great and rape ex-con Mike Tyson: "Tyson is a former undisputed heavyweight champion of the world and holds the record as the youngest boxer to win the WBC, WBA, and IBF heavyweight titles at 20 years, 4 months and 22 days old."

Hoppes on the same fellow: "Tyson is a former undisputed heavyweight champion of the world and holds the record as the youngest boxer to win the WBC, WBA, and IBF heavyweight titles at 20 years, 4 months and 22 days old."

Wikipedia has this to say on The Odd Couple, in its days as a stage play:

"The Odd Couple premiered on Broadway at the Plymouth Theatre on March 10, 1965 and transferred to the Eugene O'Neill Theatre where it closed on July 2, 1967 after 966 performances and two previews."

Hoppes on the same Neil Simon play:

"The Odd Couple premiered on Broadway at the Plymouth Theatre on March 10, 1965 and transferred to the Eugene O'Neill Theatre where it closed on July 2, 1967 after 966 performances and two previews."

There are many more examples, but that will suffice. Even in those relatively straightforward examples, we can rule out coincidence.

But none of that is the really weird thing here. Nor do I have in mind the fact that ESPN is still standing by their guy, Hoppes remains gainfully employed. The Deadspin guys on the matter, Rauch and John Koblan, were for a long time simply ignored. So far as we know Hoppes has not been disciplined. And it appears to have taken ESPN months to make any changes in the columns with the wikipedia lifts in them.

No: what is really weird is that an ESPN Vice President has decided to defend his organization's reputation by painting the the whole thing as the consequence of a romantic disappointment. Mark Sanchez, a journalism student (not the Jets quarterback) tells us via his twitter account: "I asked John Walsh in class about Koblan/Hoppes feud. Says it's over a girlfriend dispute."

Follow that link and read the whole fascinating exchange. Sanchez is taking a course on sports writing, and his instructor brought in an ESPN big wheel for a little Q-and-A with the aspirant scribes. Non-confrontational, all in good fun exchange between a greybeard and eager young folk, right?

Sanchez asks about Hoppes. VP Walsh gives this love-triangle non-response. Hoppes once stole Koblan's gal and this is Koblan's way of getting back.

Cheap ad hominem even if true. Apparently not true. Weird twist -- Walsh picked the wrong guy on which to hang such a tale. Koblan is gay. And openly so.

Words fail me. And I'm not going to steal anybody else's to try to hide that fact, either.

If you want to read the scrubbed-up version of the ESPN column whence came the above two examples of plagiarism, go here.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog