Post by robeiae on May 15, 2017 9:11:52 GMT -5
Look at this: $697,177 for a ‘Climate-Change Musical’: You Call That Science?
Now look at this: With NSF funds limited, is $697,177 for climate change musical worth it?
Both are by the same person--Henry I. Miller--and are obviously about the same sort of thing. The first is from the WSJ on May 12th, 2017. The second is from the LA Times on June 29th...2015!
Are they exactly the same? Nope, but they're pretty close, at a number of points.
From the first:
From the second:
The first requires--at the very least--an "that I noted in a 2015 op-ed" at the very least. Really, I think the WSJ should be noting that this piece is a rehash of a previously published op-ed by Miller (actually, I don't think the WSJ should have published it at all, but I guess they needed the filler).
But this is hardly the first instance of such self-plagiarism that I've seen on the internet. The vast majority of it seems to be ignored, however.
Questions: should it be ignored? Is it really no big deal? After all, one can't really steal one's own words...can one?
Now look at this: With NSF funds limited, is $697,177 for climate change musical worth it?
Both are by the same person--Henry I. Miller--and are obviously about the same sort of thing. The first is from the WSJ on May 12th, 2017. The second is from the LA Times on June 29th...2015!
Are they exactly the same? Nope, but they're pretty close, at a number of points.
From the first:
A few doozies include the veiling-fashion industry in Turkey, Viking textiles in Iceland, the “social impacts” of tourism in the northern tip of Norway, and whether hunger causes couples to fight (using the number of pins stuck in voodoo dolls as a measure of aggressive feelings).
From the second:
Here are some doozies: the veiling-fashion industry in Turkey, Viking textiles in Iceland, the “social impacts” of tourism in the northern tip of Norway, legal careers in transition following law school, and whether hunger causes couples to fight (using the number of pins stuck in voodoo dolls as a measure of aggressive feelings).
The first requires--at the very least--an "that I noted in a 2015 op-ed" at the very least. Really, I think the WSJ should be noting that this piece is a rehash of a previously published op-ed by Miller (actually, I don't think the WSJ should have published it at all, but I guess they needed the filler).
But this is hardly the first instance of such self-plagiarism that I've seen on the internet. The vast majority of it seems to be ignored, however.
Questions: should it be ignored? Is it really no big deal? After all, one can't really steal one's own words...can one?
