Railroading in 2040

[charlie hebdo]

zugmann

 

 

Euclid

Can somebody also post the concise definition of plagiarism that would apply this this incident as it occurred in the U.S.?

 

 

https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/plagiarism

https://style.mla.org/plagiarism-and-academic-dishonesty/

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism

 

+1  I hope that clarifies,  for those who bother to read. 

[MMLDelete]

Uh-huh.

[Overmod]

Did I actually type 'ellispsis'???

Incidentally, even though I know you haven't particularly studied it, you might want to investigate exactly what an ellipsis is, and when it varies from an elided continuation (or from the space notation used in radio-copy markup).  You may be dismayed (that is, if you have intellectual honesty left) in the three-dot conventions you will find in the following somewhat apposite section of the Chicago Manual of Style:

https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html

Although perhaps you'll find fault with them, too.

Nothing like good ad hominems, anyway, especially if the person making them can get away with precisely the actions they condemn someone else of as they do so.  There's a word for that, you know, and it isn't 'plagiarism'.

You should see the misspellings I have to go back and correct every time I post off this <deleted> iPhone, "Bit" being one of the ones that got away.  Especially fun is the new feature, I think introduced in iOS 13, where attempts to correct typos in a word are treated as if only the corrected letters are part of a word ... and you can't turn it off!  Meanwhile autocorrect of gems like 'snd', 'if' instead of 'of', 'eord' and other irritating things are gleefully ignored, and if there is consistency in what you have to tap to get a word flagged for correction rather than having the text insertion point randomly stuck in a line above or below the object of attention ... I haven't figured it out.

At least iOS 14 promises to let us use external keyboards 'native' so perhaps I can stop having to one-finger type and actually have arrow keys to use.

[MMLDelete]

zugmann

 

 

Overmod

Which was published where, exactly?  I'd like to read a copy, if only to find out why nobody at its publisher's can spell.

 

 

Not everyone can be perfect like you think you are.  

 

Hey, this is the same guy who, after I wrote a lengthy post about copyright, which had a single passing reference to a a long-dead politician, felt compelled to begin his response post by pointing out that I had left out an "L" in the guy's name.

 

Q) Who else here presumes to have the right to correct other folks' spelling, usage and punctuation?

A) No one.

 

But since he clearly enjoys his sort of thing, let's review some examples of Professor Perfect's recent writing (all from just this thread). You know, so we can "help him out."

highly parallel 20 years out... 

There should be a space before the ellipsis.

 

Bit for chrissake

Jesus would never ask a person to bite someone else.

 

due diligence... or

There he goes again ...

 

intent to mislead…

There he goes again ...

 

While it is your privi

If this refers to my outhouse, a) I don't have one, and b) he spelled it wrong.

If this is meant to be the slang term for a private-schooler, I don't have one of those either.

 

named in the suit…

There he goes again ...

 

I don't think either party could be faulted in the least for discretion.

Why would anyone ever be faulted for discretion? Indiscretion, perhaps; which was the subject of the post he was resonding to.

[Overmod]

Convicted One

Weren't you just saying a few posts ago that none of that was any business of our inquiring minds?

Yeah, I was.  And that still, really, applies -- nothing we say here, or do here, is going to affect anything, or change what happened.  

Don really didn't say any more than 'isn't it strange there's an article just like mine, and it would have been nice to be acknowledged'.  All the plagiarism witch-hunt happened after that, and not at Don's behest.

Some of my current irritation stems from the 'new knowledge' that the original Railroading in 2048 post was taken down many months ago, not as a response to Don's present concern.  To be honest, no, that doesn't make it a renewed topic for inquiring minds, either.

[zugmann]

Euclid

Can somebody also post the concise definition of plagiarism that would apply this this incident as it occurred in the U.S.?

https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/plagiarism

https://style.mla.org/plagiarism-and-academic-dishonesty/

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism

[Euclid]

 

I have not seen these two articles side by side for comparison.  But for charges of plagiarism or copyright violation, I assume that they must be nearly identical word for word. Yet I hear terms such as style and presentation.  This sounds rather subjective.  Can someone explain exactly why the second article is plagiarism of the first one?  What did the author do to be charged with plagiarism, and how does what he did fit the terms of the definition of plagiarism? 

 

Can somebody also post the concise definition of plagiarism that would apply this this incident as it occurred in the U.S.?

 

[Convicted One]

Overmod

I hope I'm wrong about what they run as a retraction, but I'd bet it'll be carefully worded and give Don little satisfaction ... simple as it would be just to give him full credit for the inspiration, I don't think that's enough now

Weren't you just saying a few posts ago that none of that was any business of our inquiring minds?  But now we are deciding what's enough?

Really this illustrates nicely why I think a little more discretion  from the OP might have been better.

Again, IF IT WAS ME in the magazine's position , I'd likely be more inclined to be generous in determining a resolution if not having to be concerned with what precedent I might be setting in front of the many onlookers.

[zugmann]

Overmod

Evidently not everyone can have a sense of humor, either, it seems.

Maybe if something funny was said..

You don't need to respond to this.  Give your keyboard a break.  But you will. 

[Overmod]

zugmann

Not everyone can be perfect like you think you are.

Evidently not everyone can have a sense of humor, either, it seems.

[zugmann]

Overmod

Which was published where, exactly?  I'd like to read a copy, if only to find out why nobody at its publisher's can spell.

Not everyone can be perfect like you think you are.  

[Overmod]

charlie hebdo

I would say that my saying your positing a House bill as an example is not analogous is not my saying how clever I am,  but more an example of how your posts often seem to wander on down the proverbial rabbit hole with obscure references. 

To which of course I would say "of course that's what you would say" and we'd be off for another round of intellectual jousting while everyone else reading the thread rolls their eyes some more.  We should stick to the issue better -- which is only going to be solved in a real way when we hear something definitive from Colin.  (I don't propose that we wait for anything here from a Kalmbach staffer, let alone one of the editors responsible for this debacle; I hope I'm wrong about what they run as a retraction, but I'd bet it'll be carefully worded and give Don little satisfaction ... simple as it would be just to give him full credit for the inspiration, I don't think that's enough for 'closure' now.)

I believe the discussion of the name change was explicitly stated at one point, perhaps in this thread; I recall as being by Colin (and it may have subsequently been deleted).  It is obvious that it was 2048 in the original, and equally obvious that it's 2040 in the magazine, and this is not a random change as well as being a highly unfortunate one.  I do think there was little if any reason for Colin to make that change, and I repeat that it should have been a flag to him to at least comment on the "inspiration thing" and to insist that Don be given credit for that -- whether or not the staff wanted to reference 'somebody else's blog' in their fine shiny futurist piece.

I believe I have already mentioned that there is a recent Supreme Court decision that clearly limits recourse in copyright violation to registered, not just implied copyright.  That in itself defines the issue more sharply to moral/ethical issues of plagiarism rather than actionable recourse.

[charlie hebdo]

OM: Thank you for the concise clarification.  I would say that my saying your positing a House bill as an example is not analogous is not my saying how clever I am,  but more an example of how your posts often seem to wander on down the proverbial rabbit hole with obscure references. 

Peter 's post was fascinating.  It does illustrate a clear difference in perceptions concerning intellectual misappropriation of written material (plagiarism) and copyright violations.  The latter appears to have a narrower definition in practice. I am relieved to see that you believe Colin's article and post were examples of a specific type of plagiarism. 

[MMLDelete]

M636C

Part of the problem, as Overmod has observed, is that Colin wrote an article (as a forum post) about Railroading in 2048. This drew from Don's blog post about Railroading in 2040, written six years ago.

Kalmbach, celebrating 80 years of the Magazine CHANGED THE TITLE to Railroading in 2040 to match a theme of twenty years before and after (as an even fraction of 80).

Don only saw the "Railroading in 2040" version in the magazine. He saw the similarities and WITH THE CHANGE IN TITLE felt ripped off.

In 1984 I wrote a book called Locomotives in China. It was a great success and quickly sold out. In 1986, the annual Jane's World Railways published a list of Chinese diesel locomotives that reflected exactly the material in my book. This was an uncredited theft of my intellectual property, in much the same way as Colin's article is now seen.

However, the material was presented slightly differently and since I had published the book, the DATA was public property, although its specific presentation was not.

I was, in fact pleased that the Jane's editor had recognised the quality of my material, which had, of course, been drawn from many official Chinese language sources. The feature of my book was just that it was the first listing in English.

What did I do about it?

I couldn't afford to buy a copy of JWR, but I waited until that issue was remaindered, and picked up a copy. It has equally good data on many other subjects and I know who researched the Chinese section.

Once you have published something, the content, if not the particular words themselves is public property regardless of any copyright claim.

In fact, my clumsy printers misspelled the word as "copywright" and I insisted that stickers with the correct spelling be placed over the error, since I felt that copyright might be challenged over the spelling error.

Don doesn't own the ideas once they are published on his blog. He does own the specific words, the style and presentation. Anyone is free to use the ideas, in their own words.

Peter

 

Peter, thanks for your take on the date change. That makes sense to me.

I had been arse-backward confused about the date change. I thought the change was from 2040 to 2048. I never saw Colin's original post of his orignal story, and even though I've read the article Trains article and it is clearly 2040, not 2048, that blew right by me. My mistake.

I've seen references to Colin being asked to change the title by Trains, but do we actually know that? I've also seen references to Colin apologizing to Don, but I have not seen that. I saw he asked Don to PM him, and I read Don's post that he had missed a June LinkedIn message from Colin. Where is that apology?

Peter, do you have inside info that Trains asked for the name change to get to an even of 20 years? Or are you just assuming that? (It does seem to be a good assumption, and nothing nefarious.)

[Overmod]

charlie hebdo

Before it was Memphis.  Now Louisiana?

I moved from Shreveport to Memphis in 1997 (with a stint in Marina del Rey and Encino in the meantime, but that's irreverent).  All the effective controversy over HR 1400 was essentially long over by then.

Your example of a House bill as an apologia for Colin's behavior is far from analogous.

Perhaps if you were as clever as you imply, you would actually comprehend what HR1400 actually was, or why peripherally changing references while leaving the wording as intact as possible was part of the exercise.

I wonder why you feel the need to defend such behavior. 

I was only pointing out that in both cases the idea ... as I understood from reading the original Railroading in 2048 post ... was to keep the original plainly, as if working from a template, so that no one could mistake the provenance, but then use different details in the given context.  It did occur to me at the time that moving the 'date' forward eight years and using developments in railroading after Don's blog entry was written changed it away from what it seems to have been made into.  That post I could defend as what I recall Colin saying it was, a West-Coast version of his story.  What it has turned into ... a for-pay article, with no credit for the inspiration, for all I know exploiting parallel structure, with the date intentionally changed, and with no explanation to date from its author ... is much harder to 'defend' and becoming less so the longer it remains "unaccounted for" by its perpetrators.

[Overmod]

zugmann

Just like that book:  Henry Potter and the Philospher's Rock?

Which was published where, exactly?  I'd like to read a copy, if only to find out why nobody at its publisher's can spell.

[M636C]

Part of the problem, as Overmod has observed, is that Colin wrote an article (as a forum post) about Railroading in 2048. This drew from Don's blog post about Railroading in 2040, written six years ago.

Kalmbach, celebrating 80 years of the Magazine CHANGED THE TITLE to Railroading in 2040 to match a theme of twenty years before and after (as an even fraction of 80).

Don only saw the "Railroading in 2040" version in the magazine. He saw the similarities and WITH THE CHANGE IN TITLE felt ripped off.

In 1984 I wrote a book called Locomotives in China. It was a great success and quickly sold out. In 1986, the annual Jane's World Railways published a list of Chinese diesel locomotives that reflected exactly the material in my book. This was an uncredited theft of my intellectual property, in much the same way as Colin's article is now seen.

However, the material was presented slightly differently and since I had published the book, the DATA was public property, although its specific presentation was not.

I was, in fact pleased that the Jane's editor had recognised the quality of my material, which had, of course, been drawn from many official Chinese language sources. The feature of my book was just that it was the first listing in English.

What did I do about it?

I couldn't afford to buy a copy of JWR, but I waited until that issue was remaindered, and picked up a copy. It has equally good data on many other subjects and I know who researched the Chinese section.

Once you have published something, the content, if not the particular words themselves is public property regardless of any copyright claim.

In fact, my clumsy printers misspelled the word as "copywright" and I insisted that stickers with the correct spelling be placed over the error, since I felt that copyright might be challenged over the spelling error.

Don doesn't own the ideas once they are published on his blog. He does own the specific words, the style and presentation. Anyone is free to use the ideas, in their own words.

Peter

[charlie hebdo]

Histrionics?  Stealing another's creative, intellectual property is serious business.

[Convicted One]

Overmod

If Don were to feel he needed any sort of 'compensation' or 'being made whole', he will either work that out with Colin privately or, if from Kalmbach, with their legal department.  None of that is any business of our 'inquiring minds'

That really was my main thought. It's Kalmbach's Magazine, it's Kalmbach's forum, if there is a problem needing worked out, why not  try to work it out directly with them, thus avoiding the histrionics contributed by the rest of the community?

[charlie hebdo]

Before it was Memphis.  Now Louisiana?

 

Your example of a House bill as an apologia for Colin's behavior is far from analogous. I wonder why you feel the need to defend such behavior. 

[M636C]

Colin also said early in this thread that he was PMing Don.  I thought that would be to work things out man-to-man but I am now less sure.  Would Don be willing to discuss anything about that message exchange?

Don indicated earlier in this thread that Colin had sent him a message on "Linked In" but he hadn't read it before he started this thread on publication of the article, since he rarely checked that service.

I don't know if there has been any more contact between the two.

Peter

 

 

[zugmann]

Overmod

As I understood his original intent, he was duplicating the structure of Don's account but substituting West Coast details.

Just like that book:  Henry Potter and the Philospher's Rock?

[Overmod]

charlie hebdo

If he said he was inspired by Don's post,  it means he was very familiar with it.  And thus he committed plagiarism because what he posted went far beyond mere inspiration. 

As I understood his original intent, he was duplicating the structure of Don's account but substituting West Coast details.  There's a potential place for that in a free exchange of ideas as it keeps the form of presentation similar so comparing and contrasting the ideas is easier to see.  I don't see that much difference with my going through the original Clinton HR1400 and carefully replacing every reference to the medical profession with a corresponding one for the legal profession ... but then again, no matter who I got from our delegation in Louisiana to propose the revised version as tort reform on the House floor, its name would always be hyphenated with 'Clinton' first to show the inspiration and give such credit as was due.  To call that 'plagiarism' would be to reject a primary point of the recasting, and it seems at least possible that some parallel structure in Colin's version was similar -- but of course only he would know that.

We do need to hear from him about this at some point, whether or not Kalmbach comments on it, even if it's only to say some equivalent of 'counsel advises me not to comment at this time'.  Which, in itself, would be a kind of answer.

Colin also said early in this thread that he was PMing Don.  I thought that would be to work things out man-to-man but I am now less sure.  Would Don be willing to discuss anything about that message exchange?

[charlie hebdo]

If he said he was inspired by Don's post,  it means he was very familiar with it.  And thus he committed plagiarism because what he posted went far beyond mere inspiration. 

[MMLDelete]

Overmod

more weight than speculation because of where my comment in the thread was, and its context.  While it is your privi to think that a Trains staffer would be so excited as to read the original post and go tearing off to offer its author a paid gig, I would find it more likely that they would keep reading a bit to test whether the forum fans would be representative of readership interest.  And they would VERY quickly and unambiguously come across my post... the first in fact that did not disparage the 'railroading in 2048' story as boring or TL;DR.

I did not say anything about anyone "excitedly" doing anything, and "tearing off" to anywhere; you just made that up.

There are a quite a few different possibilities of how/why Colin's post got removed. And several of them don't have anything to do with (insert drum roll) your post. I know it's hard for you to fathom that the world doesn't rotate around your words, but in fact it doesn't.

Within a few posts I suggested a few different possible scenarios, and here's another: Colin put the post up. Then he decided to submitted the piece to the magazine. The magazine accepted it. Colin independently decided that it would probably be appropriate to then take the post down, and he did. And Kalmbach never saw the post. This could easily be the case. I did not wish to counter the very polite and informative SD60MAC9500, but the fact is, Colin's putting up (and I paraphrase) the "I removed it, stay tuned" notice in no way proves that Kalmbach had seen the post. There are several possible scenarios.

[/quote]Pardon me, but that verges on the moronic.[/quote]

Everyone on this forum is used to you being pompous, overbearing and condescending. So now we know you can also simply be directly, personally insulting. Now there's a shocker. (The "pardon me" is a nice touch.)

[/quote]Many's the article, or book, that is the expanded version of a shorter piece or story in another medium.[/quote]

Wow! Thanks for the news flash. Which has absolutely zero to do with anything. But remember folks, you heard it here first from Overbearing: editing happens. Who knew?

[/quote]which was precisely the point I made here just a couple of posts ago, when someone started complaining about grandstanding.[/quote]

Well it wasn't me; I did not complain about anyone grandstanding. As for your comments then, I probably missed them; I ignore a lot of your posts.

[/quote]Then his defense against plagiarism would collapse to near-irrelevance -- and that is not speculation, but common sense, even before you address the date change.[/quote]

No, that doesn't prove anything. If I posted something online, but then later submitted something very similar to a magazine and it got accepted, I would just assume that I should then remove the free version online. That's just basic stuff. Professional courtesy.

[/quote]I have no particular dog in this hunt, unlike some of the posters here who kept ringing changes on the plagiarism charge.  To me this started as a matter of fair attribution to an original author, something no more complicated than common courtesy and not involving 'large money damages'.  The real concern is between the two authors, and I would have thought this was settled by now, as between gentlemen, until I saw Don's recent 'more dispassionate' post.  Since I, too, thought Colin had taken down the 2048 post out of concern, rather than potential expedience, this re-opened concern over how the post became an article ... something Trains readers have a right to expect a full accounting of from Kalmbach in a future issue.  And I expect that to be very different from a disclaimer that throws Colin under the bus as a plagiarist who passed his derivative work off on poor unsuspecting 'editors' with defective fact-checking skills and almost got away with it...[/quote]

Who mentioned "large money damages?" ???

 

I hope lessons are learned on all sides (Trains, Colin, us). I hope Trains improves its Contributors Guidelines. And I fervently hope above all that things are made right with Don.

 

As to some kind of public mea culpa by Kalmbach, I'd like to see that also. But my guess is that this thing will get settled out of sight, and no one other than people who visit(ed) this thread will ever know anything about it.

 

Good luck Don and Colin.

[Overmod]

.

[Overmod]

Electroliner 1935

Wasn't the telephone patent fought over the time the inventors claimed to have documented their invention? And Alexander Grahm Bell won that contest?

Oh, it's worse than that.  Elisha Gray invented the real, practical telephone, and made the mistake of perfecting it as a system before going to Washington to file.  He did so in the afternoon ... of the day Bell filed his in the morning.

I do not remember clearly whether Bell got wind of Gray's going to file; there was quite a historical display on him in Baddeck in the late 60s snd I believe it was mentioned there.

[Electroliner 1935]

Euclid

It often happens that an inventor has exactly the same idea for an invention as another person.  Yet nobody can claim the idea as their own just because they believe they were the first to think of it.

Wasn't the telephone patent fought over the time the inventors claimed to have documented their invention? And Alexander Grahm Bell won that contest?

[Overmod]

charlie hebdo

If I read your less-than-lucid post correctly,  I think you inadvertently nailed Colin.

Inadvertence has little to do with it at this point.  My previous opinion, based on what I saw or could recollect, had been that this was a matter of inadequate formal recognition of Don's post in the Trains Magazine formal publication of the article.  And this was the extent of any problem with a magazine 'retraction', leaving Don and Colin to work out a fair solution to what was likely a multiple-error omission of credit.

This changes if the original  'plagiarized' forum posting ... which, I repeat, was very quickly noted as derived from Don's post ... was taken down prior to publication ... let alone over six months prior to publication.  I distinctly recall Colin confirming he got the inspiration from Don; it is not really conceivable that he did not read the comments on that thread before deleting his own post, as is now indicated, "seventeen days later".  So it becomes critical to determine exactly why Colin deleted the post, and whether or not someone at Kalmbach (I can't think of any other third party, including Don, with an  express concern) advised him to do so at that time.  Absent that specific information I'm not willing to brand Colin an outright plagiarist as you are... but if he was the one initiating the removal to facilitate publication for compensation I would be much more inclined to agree with you.

Kalmbach rightly assumes people submit material in good faith,  but then they compounded the theft.

But that sentence badly begs the question of how Kalmbach became aware of 'Railroading in 2048' in the first place.  My understanding right up to now was that Kalmbach had seen the blog post and solicited a fuller version.  That too needs to be clarified.

But the primary culprit was Colin.

If he knowingly submitted the contents of that post to Kalmbach at the same time as he started the forum thread, without specifically noting Don as the inspiration, then yes, he would be prima facie guilty of plagiarism, in fact a fairly ugly form of it.  But as Lithonia Operator just pointed out, that is still speculation.  I continue to believe we need to know the full situation, including any hand Kalmbach had in encouraging Colin to cover up the origin of the material in an ultimately suspicious way.

We shouldn't diffuse the responsibility with wordy dialogues. 

I can just as easily agree with the 'current' Lithonia stance that we shouldn't rush to judgment without knowing all the facts, an action that terseness or even conciseness won't excuse.

[charlie hebdo]

Overmod

 

 

Lithonia Operator

If you want to conclude that Trains knew about Don's blog post, that's your right. But you don't know that's true. It's just your best guess, no better or worse than anyone else's guesses.

 

 

It is not a 'guess', it is an observation, which carries more weight than speculation because of where my comment in the thread was, and its context.  While it is your privi to think that a Trains staffer would be so excited as to read the original post and go tearing off to offer its author a paid gig, I would find it more likely that they would keep reading a bit to test whether the forum fans would be representative of readership interest.  And they would VERY quickly and unambiguously come across my post... the first in fact that did not disparage the 'railroading in 2048' story as boring or TL;DR.

... asking to remove the blog post because the article became slated for publication is not nefarious at all. It's just common sense.[/quote]Pardon me, but that verges on the moronic.  Many's the article, or book, that is the expanded version of a shorter piece or story in another medium.  Just as acknowledging Don as an influence has been rightly indicated as a 'no-brainer', so would a simple blurb or disclaimer saying 'a shorter version of this account appeared in the Train Magaxine xxxx forum as 'Railroading in 2048'.  In case you didn't notice, that also has the advantage of being the truth without need for compromise.

 

 

 

Only Colin, some people at Trains, and perhaps (or perhaps not) Don know what all has transpired. All the rest of us are just speculating.

 

 

which was precisely the point I made here just a couple of posts ago, when someone started complaining about grandstanding.

 

 

 

Maybe Colin submitted his piece by mail, then after it got accepted, he called and told Trains the story was up on the forum, and asked if he should take it down. And was told "yes, please."

 

 

Then his defense against plagiarism would collapse to near-irrelevance -- and that is not speculation, but common sense, even before you address the date change.

 

[/quote]I have no reason to stand up for Kalmbach. I like some of their products, and not others. And I don't like how they deal with photographers. But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I know better. (And most of us probably never will.)[/quote]

I have no particular dog in this hunt, unlike some of the posters here who kept ringing changes on the plagiarism charge.  To me this started as a matter of fair attribution to an original author, something no more complicated than common courtesy and not involving 'large money damages'.  The real concern is between the two authors, and I would have thought this was settled by now, as between gentlemen, until I saw Don's recent 'more dispassionate' post.  Since I, too, thought Colin had taken down the 2048 post out of concern, rather than potential expedience, this re-opened concern over how the post became an article ... something Trains readers have a right to expect a full accounting of from Kalmbach in a future issue.  And I expect that to be very different from a disclaimer that throws Colin under the bus as a plagiarist who passed his derivative work off on poor unsuspecting 'editors' with defective fact-checking skills and almost got away with it...

 

[/quote]

If I read your less-than-lucid post correctly,  I think you inadvertently nailed Colin. I refuse to excuse his plagiarism as the actions of some unaware kid.  Kalmbach rightly assumes people submit material in good faith,  but then they compounded the theft. But the primary culprit was Colin.  We shouldn't diffuse the responsibility with wordy dialogues.