<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Scandal in BarbieWorld!  New Barbie book plagiarizes title from 1995</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/</link>
	<description>History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 16:06:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Digger</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/comment-page-1/#comment-430643</link>
		<dc:creator>Digger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:49:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=7157#comment-430643</guid>
		<description>@ Feminist Avatar - Oy!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Feminist Avatar &#8211; Oy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Feminist Avatar</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/comment-page-1/#comment-430416</link>
		<dc:creator>Feminist Avatar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=7157#comment-430416</guid>
		<description>@ Digger- Perhaps future historians and English lit people will spend hours analysing how the physical form in which we accessed our material affected our interpretation- a bit like we do now in discussions of folio versus quarto as measures of textual authority...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Digger- Perhaps future historians and English lit people will spend hours analysing how the physical form in which we accessed our material affected our interpretation- a bit like we do now in discussions of folio versus quarto as measures of textual authority&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shaz</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/comment-page-1/#comment-429931</link>
		<dc:creator>Shaz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:31:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=7157#comment-429931</guid>
		<description>John S -- Yup, that would piss me off too.  Again, erring on the side of generosity (giving ideas deserves even more credit than flagging a citation!) is always a good move.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John S &#8212; Yup, that would piss me off too.  Again, erring on the side of generosity (giving ideas deserves even more credit than flagging a citation!) is always a good move.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John S.</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/comment-page-1/#comment-429849</link>
		<dc:creator>John S.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=7157#comment-429849</guid>
		<description>Shaz--the acknowledgments in the notes (or lack thereof) is a big pet peeve of mine. I have one acquaintance in the profession who asked me to read half of hir manuscript for a book. And I did, offering copious commentary (including suggestions for primary sources, secondary sources, etc.) This acquaintance thanked me for the comments, and assured me that I would receive credit in the book.

Book comes out, and some of the marginal comments I offered appear word for word in the text. (Others are barely paraphrased.) I am thanked, but not in any individual notes (&quot;Thanks to John S. for suggesting...&quot;). I was one of thirty-eight individuals listed in the front acknowledgments as people with whom the author had &quot;interesting conversations.&quot;

Beyond personal pique--and yeah, there was some--it struck me as a kind of break in the academic social contract. If someone points you to a source, or if someone helps you formulate a particularly critical idea, well, then they do deserve specific mention. Proper attribution is important.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shaz&#8211;the acknowledgments in the notes (or lack thereof) is a big pet peeve of mine. I have one acquaintance in the profession who asked me to read half of hir manuscript for a book. And I did, offering copious commentary (including suggestions for primary sources, secondary sources, etc.) This acquaintance thanked me for the comments, and assured me that I would receive credit in the book.</p>
<p>Book comes out, and some of the marginal comments I offered appear word for word in the text. (Others are barely paraphrased.) I am thanked, but not in any individual notes (&#8220;Thanks to John S. for suggesting&#8230;&#8221;). I was one of thirty-eight individuals listed in the front acknowledgments as people with whom the author had &#8220;interesting conversations.&#8221;</p>
<p>Beyond personal pique&#8211;and yeah, there was some&#8211;it struck me as a kind of break in the academic social contract. If someone points you to a source, or if someone helps you formulate a particularly critical idea, well, then they do deserve specific mention. Proper attribution is important.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Digger</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/comment-page-1/#comment-429101</link>
		<dc:creator>Digger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:16:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=7157#comment-429101</guid>
		<description>Feminist Avatar: Apparently the MLA cares if you&#039;ve looked at it @ JSTOR or in paper, as the new standards require specification. Also, whether something was &quot;web&quot; or &quot;print&quot; or &quot;dvd&quot; etc. AND they&#039;re not requiring the URL in most cases. It&#039;s very strange to me. If I give a photocopy of an article I downloaded from JSTOR to a colleague, do they need to cite it as print or photocopy or web? What does it matter, if I can find it again? Which is why eliminating the URL is so strange.

A summary of the biggest changes here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/15/

And.. yes, I also worry about inadvertently ripping someone off. Some of my notes are not always as clear as they could be (and I&#039;m working on improving my note-taking!) If I&#039;m not sure what I have is a direct quote or a paraphrase, I paraphrase my notes and cite.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Feminist Avatar: Apparently the MLA cares if you&#8217;ve looked at it @ JSTOR or in paper, as the new standards require specification. Also, whether something was &#8220;web&#8221; or &#8220;print&#8221; or &#8220;dvd&#8221; etc. AND they&#8217;re not requiring the URL in most cases. It&#8217;s very strange to me. If I give a photocopy of an article I downloaded from JSTOR to a colleague, do they need to cite it as print or photocopy or web? What does it matter, if I can find it again? Which is why eliminating the URL is so strange.</p>
<p>A summary of the biggest changes here: <a href="http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/15/" rel="nofollow">http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/15/</a></p>
<p>And.. yes, I also worry about inadvertently ripping someone off. Some of my notes are not always as clear as they could be (and I&#8217;m working on improving my note-taking!) If I&#8217;m not sure what I have is a direct quote or a paraphrase, I paraphrase my notes and cite.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Feminist Avatar</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/comment-page-1/#comment-428979</link>
		<dc:creator>Feminist Avatar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:44:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=7157#comment-428979</guid>
		<description>When I was a grad student, I was taught how to reference online sources in history (including secondary source journals), but I think that it underestimated how much the discipline&#039;s sources were going to transfer online. It just seems to use up an inordinate amount of words when you have to include urls that could be several lines long (especially for sources in online databases), which discouraged me from bothering to do so when it was avoidable. And, the second part of that is that as so much moves online, there is almost less need to point it out that it is available in that way. Do you really care that I downloaded x article from Jstor, rather than looked it up in the library? Does it effect how you will access that source? This of course makes more of a case for citing the url when primary sources are online, but perhaps we could come up with a new convention which doesn&#039;t require so much space.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I was a grad student, I was taught how to reference online sources in history (including secondary source journals), but I think that it underestimated how much the discipline&#8217;s sources were going to transfer online. It just seems to use up an inordinate amount of words when you have to include urls that could be several lines long (especially for sources in online databases), which discouraged me from bothering to do so when it was avoidable. And, the second part of that is that as so much moves online, there is almost less need to point it out that it is available in that way. Do you really care that I downloaded x article from Jstor, rather than looked it up in the library? Does it effect how you will access that source? This of course makes more of a case for citing the url when primary sources are online, but perhaps we could come up with a new convention which doesn&#8217;t require so much space.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Colonial</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/comment-page-1/#comment-428363</link>
		<dc:creator>Colonial</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=7157#comment-428363</guid>
		<description>I remember Ambrose&#039;s response was along the lines of: It doesn&#039;t matter if the words are mine or not as long as my book tells the story well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember Ambrose&#8217;s response was along the lines of: It doesn&#8217;t matter if the words are mine or not as long as my book tells the story well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shaz</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/comment-page-1/#comment-428221</link>
		<dc:creator>Shaz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=7157#comment-428221</guid>
		<description>I agree, you do not need to cite someone whose work you used to find primary sources.  And it has pissed me off when scholars use primary quotes from my research and just cite my book in the notes, so it looks like they did their own primary research from the text.  So my rule of thumb: generosity is never a bad thing.  I regularly include a &quot;Thanks to X for this source,&quot; especially when colleagues have called something to my attention personally.  And I reference the secondary author if I (rarely) use their primary quotation.  Basically, I try to always acknowledge that we work in a community of scholars.  Unless you are doing shoddy research yourelf, it doesn&#039;t cost you to be as generous as possible!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, you do not need to cite someone whose work you used to find primary sources.  And it has pissed me off when scholars use primary quotes from my research and just cite my book in the notes, so it looks like they did their own primary research from the text.  So my rule of thumb: generosity is never a bad thing.  I regularly include a &#8220;Thanks to X for this source,&#8221; especially when colleagues have called something to my attention personally.  And I reference the secondary author if I (rarely) use their primary quotation.  Basically, I try to always acknowledge that we work in a community of scholars.  Unless you are doing shoddy research yourelf, it doesn&#8217;t cost you to be as generous as possible!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John S.</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/comment-page-1/#comment-428211</link>
		<dc:creator>John S.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:17:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=7157#comment-428211</guid>
		<description>Dr. Righteous--I caught myself almost committing such an act of unconscious plagiarism in the last draft of my book. There was one particular sentence in Chapter 6 I was particularly proud of; it had just the right turn of phrase, I thought.

Turns out, it was a pretty poetic phrase, which is why Clifford Geertz wrote it in his Balinese cockfight essay so many years ago. I read the piece as an undergrad and once in graduate school and hadn&#039;t re-read it since; one sentence had just stuck in my head, waiting to come out at an inopportune time. I only caught it when I was re-reading another secondary source invoking Geertz and this aphorism. (Tellingly, it was an allusion, without direct citation. I suppose we are all supposed to know &quot;Notes on a Balinese Cockfight&quot; without giving an exact reference?)

Needless to say, the line was quickly pulled from the book. The sometimes inartful prose in the book is all mine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dr. Righteous&#8211;I caught myself almost committing such an act of unconscious plagiarism in the last draft of my book. There was one particular sentence in Chapter 6 I was particularly proud of; it had just the right turn of phrase, I thought.</p>
<p>Turns out, it was a pretty poetic phrase, which is why Clifford Geertz wrote it in his Balinese cockfight essay so many years ago. I read the piece as an undergrad and once in graduate school and hadn&#8217;t re-read it since; one sentence had just stuck in my head, waiting to come out at an inopportune time. I only caught it when I was re-reading another secondary source invoking Geertz and this aphorism. (Tellingly, it was an allusion, without direct citation. I suppose we are all supposed to know &#8220;Notes on a Balinese Cockfight&#8221; without giving an exact reference?)</p>
<p>Needless to say, the line was quickly pulled from the book. The sometimes inartful prose in the book is all mine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. Righteous</title>
		<link>http://www.historiann.com/2009/09/04/scandal-in-barbieworld-new-barbie-book-plagiarizes-title-from-1995/comment-page-1/#comment-428179</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Righteous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:33:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.historiann.com/?p=7157#comment-428179</guid>
		<description>In psychology, one always lists a primary source that one found in a secondary source as follows, &quot;{primary source} as cited in {secondary source}&quot;. This is perfectly acceptable practice for oddball, not-easily-accessible sources, like, say, unpublished letters from Sigmund to Anna still in the family&#039;s possession. 

(I used one such reference in my thesis after I was unable to locate the original article and the authors ignored my request for a copy. After my thesis was published, I got a nasty e-mail from them taking me to task for not reading the original! But that&#039;s another story for another day.)

There is a rather lengthy and detailed section in our pub manual explaining how to cite online sources. One does not thank Google, for example, but simply cites the web address and the date the information was downloaded--in the reference section, not in a footnote. 

As for that &quot;sloppy note-taking&quot; excuse of Doris Kearns Goodwin&#039;s, that might explain &lt;i&gt;one, brief&lt;/i&gt; plagiarized passage but not numerous passages. Not to mention, I don&#039;t buy for a minute that one could copy an &lt;i&gt;entire&lt;/i&gt; paragraph onto a notecard, not put it in quotations on the notecard itself, and then not recognize later that it is not one&#039;s own prose. Puh-leeze. 

Unconscious plagiarism is more of a risk. I once said something I thought was &lt;i&gt;so&lt;/i&gt; catchy on my practice website, only to be driving down the highway a few weeks later and see it on an ad for a local healthcare chain. Eek. I had driven by that sign for years, really liked the slogan, and regurgitated it on my website with absolutely no conscious awareness of its source. 

There&#039;s a whole literature in psychology on the subject: It happens all the time that we know something, but misremember how we know it or where we know it from. Didn&#039;t make me feel any better. I removed that line from my ad as soon as I got back to the office, but I know people were bound to have seen it already, and it embarrasses me to this day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In psychology, one always lists a primary source that one found in a secondary source as follows, &#8220;{primary source} as cited in {secondary source}&#8221;. This is perfectly acceptable practice for oddball, not-easily-accessible sources, like, say, unpublished letters from Sigmund to Anna still in the family&#8217;s possession. </p>
<p>(I used one such reference in my thesis after I was unable to locate the original article and the authors ignored my request for a copy. After my thesis was published, I got a nasty e-mail from them taking me to task for not reading the original! But that&#8217;s another story for another day.)</p>
<p>There is a rather lengthy and detailed section in our pub manual explaining how to cite online sources. One does not thank Google, for example, but simply cites the web address and the date the information was downloaded&#8211;in the reference section, not in a footnote. </p>
<p>As for that &#8220;sloppy note-taking&#8221; excuse of Doris Kearns Goodwin&#8217;s, that might explain <i>one, brief</i> plagiarized passage but not numerous passages. Not to mention, I don&#8217;t buy for a minute that one could copy an <i>entire</i> paragraph onto a notecard, not put it in quotations on the notecard itself, and then not recognize later that it is not one&#8217;s own prose. Puh-leeze. </p>
<p>Unconscious plagiarism is more of a risk. I once said something I thought was <i>so</i> catchy on my practice website, only to be driving down the highway a few weeks later and see it on an ad for a local healthcare chain. Eek. I had driven by that sign for years, really liked the slogan, and regurgitated it on my website with absolutely no conscious awareness of its source. </p>
<p>There&#8217;s a whole literature in psychology on the subject: It happens all the time that we know something, but misremember how we know it or where we know it from. Didn&#8217;t make me feel any better. I removed that line from my ad as soon as I got back to the office, but I know people were bound to have seen it already, and it embarrasses me to this day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
