My training in medieval history had acquainted me with the practice of identifying dependencies among manuscripts by tracing the repetition of errors. By analogy, I thought, if there were additional idiosyncratic errors on my Web site that also appeared in the book, each instance would be a discrete piece of evidence showing that the volume had lifted material from my work.
I found myself in the unusual position of hoping that I had made more mistakes. Could I find more evidence than just two bizarrely placed asterisks?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The holographic doctor from Star Trek. He never got tired. He never made mistakes. All he would do is get saucy when too many people were bothering him. If only all of us could be like that...(tear)
Anyway, unfortunately we aren't all like him, and to address the issue the Accreditation Council…
A little archaeological conundrum found its solution this morning. At an excavation in Motala in the early 00s, colleagues of mine found a cupped piece of hard, greyish brown material with a distinctly patterned inside. They interpreted it as a piece of a lost-wax casting mould and suggested in a…
[More blog entries about archaeology, history, Scandinavia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway; arkeologi, historia, Skandinavien, Danmark, Norge, Sverige.]
Archaeology consists of a myriad of weakly interconnected regional and temporal sub-disciplines. My work in Östergötland is largely irrelevant to a…
tags: Evolution: What The Fossils Say And Why it Matters, fossils, dinosaurs, creationism, Donald Prothero, book review
I was in love with dinosaurs when I was a kid, and I still am. It was my love for dinosaurs and fossils and especially my time spent learning the minutea of the evolutionary…
Fascinating. A couple years ago I compiled a list of snakes of a country for a Wikipedia article. I later found the list reproduced on that country's biodiversity management agency's website. Since I had based it on a single book, and the webpage credited the same source, how do I know that they copied the list from Wikipedia (without acknowledgement)? Because of the way the list was formatted. The formatting was reproduced exactly.
"I found myself in the unusual position of hoping that I had made more mistakes."
We've suffered this in the field of genealogy. Some people have added false information, so that if/when their work is plagiarized, they'll recognize it.
Interesing. However, I think he made a mistake in not pointing out the intellectual laziness (to put the best face on it) of the authors of the book.