As we have discussed privately on a number of occasions, I understand and agree with what you say. I know you didn’t intend to lump all academics and UP’s together – comments on a blog don’t really allow for every little detail one intends to say – and I think people get the point. As I posted on my own blog yesterday and in the comments today, I’ve seen naughtiness by both pro’s and amateurs, and neither has a lock on stupidity. Neither does one or the other have a lock on good scholarship. It’s all based on the individual, just as in Ruhlman’s case. If guilty, and I believe he is, he needs drummed out and should have one hell of a time EVER getting anything published again. And he certainly should be done teaching. Harsh, I know, but we don’t need people breaking the rules of the very institutions of which they’re a part. If we find a bad cop, he’s out off the force. Same here.
J.D.
]]>I do find it funny, while reading various blogs on this subject that something I wrote was used by Kevin Levin in his blog as a lesson to all not to overreact. Mr. Levin did not have the courtesy to post whose quote he lifted from here, and yet he did so to use me as an example to amplify his point. Last I checked I said nothing about the university presses. My rant was on historians, and nothing more.
Am not one to back away from criticism, but I do draw the line when my thoughts are used to make me an example, and makes me look like a nut.
Regards from the Garden State,
Steve Basic
]]>
s works were published by the University of Tennessee Press."
But the McDonough work that was criticized was published by Norton, not by UT. UT Press is very reputable, and I am sad to see this particular situation tarnish it in the eyes of the public. It would appear that the reader(s) didn't pick up on the problems.]]>But the McDonough work that was criticized was published by Norton, not by UT. UT Press is very reputable, and I am sad to see this particular situation tarnish it in the eyes of the public. It would appear that the reader(s) didn’t pick up on the problems.
]]>I’ve shied away from McDonough’s other works for specifically the plagiarism angle.
]]>Regardless of background, if we recognize that it takes some conscious effort to plagiarize, it more often takes a conscious effort to not plagiarize as well.
The practical definition of plagiarism has changed significantly over time, and I imagine with search capability of an increasing number of digitized texts that it is only going to continue to narrow. I’ll be curious to see just how well works written prior to 1990 stand up to review via plagiarism programs such as “Turnitin”. Don’t think it’s not going to happen. People have too much time on their hands. ]]>
I certainly didn’t intend to get into the academic vs. non-academic issue and, in fact, assiduously avoided it. I agree that we should not bring that up here.
Eric
]]>was by a non-academic (McDonough). ]]>
It’s funny, as I have been told by a few members of the academic ilk, that someone like me, who does not have the correct “training” to write about the Civil War has no business doing so. The last I checked, in terms of plagiarism of Civil War books, those who were caught red handed recently are not from the ranks of the “untrained” historians.
My advice to those in academia is to clean up their own house first before casting continued derogatory comments on the “amateur” historians they seem to take issue with.
Just my opinion, and if it ruffles some feathers, so be it, and I hope it does.
Regards from the Garden State,
Steve Basic
]]>