Jaclyn Glenn has been caught plagiarizing Matt Dillahunty now.
I just don’t get it. Plagiarism eventually outs; if you’re using it to build content and get more popular, then the more popular you are, the more likely your sins will be discovered. It’s a strategy that lets you bull ahead fast…straight towards a brick wall.
It’s also unfortunate because, while I was never a fan, it’s one more example that will tar the reputation of atheism…and we’ve had more than enough of that.
Well, hey, plagiarising Matt Dillahunty? At least it’s a sign of good taste, right?
Though, to be fair, I’m not all that convinced by most of that video. The particular order of the things to look at as evidence in that last bit, maybe, but most of that stuff is pretty obvious. You might be able to argue that the tenet/tenant thing suggests that she’s just repeating words without knowing what they mean, but then a lot of people do say tenant when they meant tenet… so… hmm. I don’t know, maybe she really did plagiarise that and just reword a few bits, but I’m not totally convinced.
Athywren, you might need to catch up a little bit. See: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/09/27/plagiarism-is-such-a-stupid-crime/
At best, I suppose, it could just be laziness. At worst, well, she is making money off of other people’s work and ideas, which is super shitty. I suppose hubris could have gotten in the way and she thought she wouldn’t get caught, but really, how does that work? I can’t imagine all the bad decisions that have to happen before it made it into published form. At no point did she stop and think, gee, maybe I should make this a little more original! I just don’t get it.
How long before she pulls this video and claims she just didn’t much like it?
Plagiarism destroys the credibility of the plagiarist in the eyes of their peers. It’s like a moral copyright violation. But is there any evidence that the general public give a rat’s ass about plagiarism?
Sometimes it honestly seems like a coincidence (they happen upon the same subjects which, when you’re dealing with the most basic of evangelical Christian doctrines, is very very easy; there’s going to be a hell of a lot of redundancy), but there are points where it’s almost like she took time to transcribe other people’s videos and just read that like it was her script.
I think there’s a possibility that Glenn’s not plagiarizing. Not that the words and ideas aren’t plagiarized, but that she’s not the one doing it. Ever since it was confirmed at B&W a while back that the “About Me” section of her site was written, as was fairly apparent, not by her but by a guy, I’ve suspected a sort of Skeptic Spice phenomenon.* It could be that she’s been a means to market atheist-antifeminist ideas.
Of course, this wouldn’t excuse her from choosing to act as a mouthpiece for others, or from her feminist-bashing. But it would somewhat acquit her of plagiarism if she’s reading from plagiarized scripts prepared by others. Or, she could just be a video-plagiarist. In either case, it drives home how little the atheists who oppose social justice actually have to contribute in their own right.
* Which is in no way to denigrate the Spice Girls, about whom I know virtually nothing other than that they were hugely popular and that Victoria Beckham, who’s since become an impressive designer, was a member.
It looks like it would take more effort to transcribe or memorize someone else’s work than it would to paraphrase it. If you like what someone says and lack the originality or integrity to formulate your own thoughts, why not at least put that shit in your own words?!
@Caine, 2
No, I’m aware of previous plagiarism on her part – it’s this example that I’m not completely convinced by. I’m not saying she’s not a plagiarist, just that this one instance doesn’t seem so obvious. It’s possible to be a plagiarist without everything you put out being plagiarised, after all.
Of course, the only thing I’ve seen on this instance is the video in this post, so it’s possible that it’s just an unconvincing arrangement of damning evidence, but I can’t speak to that right now.
This is why, when I do something that involves research, I’ll note where I’m quoting or paraphrasing another person’s work. And if I have a brain-fart and miss a citation, let me know, I’ll fix it. Or… well… I’m far from perfect, but I try to cite all my sources.
I do think, however, that sometimes there are only so many ways to express the same idea, and some ideas, some fields of thought and research use highly-specialized terminology — one can quite accidentally use the same, or very nearly the same words as another person did. (Of course, one should acknowledge that this has occurred, and give credit where it’s due, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety.)
As for Ms. Glenn, the evidence is damning. When one makes a habit of not citing their sources, one should expect to be called out for plagiarism.
This is a bit less clear than the other cases, but given the other obvious cases I don’t think we should give the benefit of the doubt.
And that this thing, sugarfrosted.
While I’m not pushing Athywren to be convinced (or not) by any bit of evidence or (by any evidence) of this particular alleged instance, the fact that plagiarism has happened in the past simply makes one need less evidence in the future. We already know from past allegations and how the evidence/argument/proof played out in those situations that Glenn is the kind of person who would plagiarize. We don’t have to overcome that objection anew when looking at a more recent allegation.
And thus looking at this video, I feel convinced that at least some plagiarism was going on. How much? Don’t know. Don’t care. It’s more that she did it again at all and less about how many of her words were lifted from another source without attribution.
@Crip Dyke, 12
To be honest, whether I’m convinced or not doesn’t really make much difference – the first time I ever heard of her, she was trying to knock down a strawfeminist coven, and every subsequent time has been something utterly inane or very convincing accusations of plagiarism, so it’s not like I have any respect for her that’ll be lost if I’m convinced of this instance, nor is my acceptance of the claim that she’s a plagiarist reliant on my acceptance of this particular claim of plagiarism.
It’s not just that she’S plagiarizing, it’s that she’s also doing it lazily.
Yes, the ideas aren’t terribly original. We’ve heard it all before. Matt didn’t invent those particular arguments and it’s not like people didn’t work then out repeatedly and independently. I know I figured out how morally bankrupt and horribly injust christian forgiveness is long before I could have followed those videos in English.
So, yeah, the content itself isn’t the damning part, it’s the phrasing, timing and structure. It’s using the same structure and examples as Matt, the same order in which an argument is made (which is not necessarily dependent on the logic of the argument), the same examples. And then as usually she dumbs everything down in terms of language but suddenly usues a high register word and look andbe hold it’S the one that Matt used…
You know, if she had just put in a tiny bit of her own work, she would have gotten away with it. Think of a different example. Start with a rethorical question here, change the structure of the segment there…
But hey, she’s anti-feminist so I guess that’s OK with her fans. I also guess that there are people claiming we’re the real misogynists ’cause we go after her.
ugh, looks like I wasn’t sufficiently clear.
I was trying to do a couple things in my #12, Athywren. I felt sugarfrosted’s statement was a bit too prescriptive. I wanted to say that it wasn’t important that we convince you, both because I wanted to discourage reading you as defending Glenn when you clearly weren’t, and also because I think it’s good that we each evaluate the evidence individually.
But I also wanted to agree with sugarfrosted that “benefit of the doubt” is lost and be a bit more specific about what that meant.
Now I fear I made it seem that I was agreeing with sugar frosted that you had gone wrong in your analysis or in your conclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have great respect for you and I’m sorry to have given that impression.
@Crip Dyke, (do I need to specify 15? Probably not…)
:3 No worries, I wasn’t taking anything you – or anyone else, really – said as a criticism of my position, just clarifying it… though I really am very tired right now, so it might’ve come through a little defensive, which would be orders of magnitude more defensive than I actually feel. I don’t feel the slightest bit attacked or judged as wrong (but, honestly, I don’t really fear being judged as wrong here – the worst you’ll do is chew me out and point me at the relevant information, and I think I can handle that). But thanks for saying you respect me – my ego will feast tonight! :P (Likewise, btw)
Randomly thinking about it… the number of times I end up telling people that I wasn’t offended, I should probably just do myself a sig – “none taken” :P
Glenn produces her videos by editing together small sections of dialogue. This is visible as slight jumps in the position of her face as one cut switches to another. (Doing so is fair enough, as delivering a perfect monologue is difficult. It’s better to have cuts, than for the speech to be filled with umms and ahhs.)
I’d say that she does her plagiarism in a similar way. She watches sections of the target video, and then repeats them to the camera, nominally in her own words. The repetitions then get edited together into the final video. This would explain the “not quite plagiarism” nature of her videos.
There’s also the question of why. If the “Skeptic Spice” theory is correct, it’s possible that she’s attempted to go it alone, but simply lacks the ability to write her own content.
Does plagiarism matter at all (in this sort of context- scientific research is a different matter)? If someone’s trying to get over a message about something important, surely no one gives a toss whether the message is their own words or someone else’s. And if they’re talking bollocks, it improves it not at all that they talk bollocks in their own original way. The problem with Glenn isn’t plagiarism, it’s wilful stupidity, distortion and bad will (that’s enough for now). After all, no one really cared that Al Capone was a tax avoider, it was the racketeering, corruption, violence and murder that upset folks.
#7 – I made the mistake of reading through that About Me section – nothing in there says to me that it was necessarily a man (I’ve had to do the third person thing in writing my own mini-biographies for press releases or conferences). Do you have a link for the B&W thing you mention? The name doesn’t ring a bell. But good Lord, just looking at the stills from those videos is enough to tell me I’d rather chew off a finger than watch one.
I was looking for any response from her on the allegations – has she said anything?
jacksprocket
Have you noticed that Youtube is a multi-billion dollar industry? She’s not standing on the corner in the rain on a cardboard box giving a passionate speech. She makes videos to gain money. Using others’ work and passing it off as your own to gain money is pretty unethical. If you want Matt Dillahunty to script your videos because you’Re too dumb or too lazy to come up with your own content, pay him.
The person whose words are being used without citation is being hurt. They did the work, and somebody else tries to take the credit. Ethics appears to be something that some people don’t have enough of. Including you, Jacksprocket.
It was here, in the comments.
Uh, people clearly DO care. This discussion and the *several* previous ones is proof enough of that. Also, may I remind you that someone was kicked out of FTB for plagiarizing? It’s a serious offense that people do certainly care about.
Just as I was thinking that atheism didn’t have its own Food Babe, up pops Glenn to demonstrate that she’s just as much a lazy, gormless, scamming-ass hack as the Babe herself. But at least Food Barbie can repackage her unoriginal dumbarsery a bit better than Glenn.
And this:
If someone’s trying to get over a message about something important, surely no one gives a toss whether the message is their own words or someone else’s.
is the most naïve thing I ever read.
Of course people care if someone’s ripping off another’s work. Plagiarism’s both theft and fraud – I trust we don’t need an ethics refresher to explain why stealing and lying is wrong.
If all Glenn wanted to do was signal-boost an important message, it would have been far easier for her to mirror the source videos (with permission) or link to them or discuss them using clips, etc. But she didn’t, either because she didn’t know her script was stolen (which implies incompetence or laziness) or didn’t think anyone would notice (implying dishonesty, greed, laziness again).
I eagerly await Glenn’s supporters to provide more rationalisations – or I could wait and see if she acknowledges fault and acts accordingly. We’ll see.
jacksprocket @ 18:
I give more than a bloody toss, thank you very much. My words are my words. If I express something well enough that someone else would like to use it, the very least they could do would be to fucking ask if they could use it. Most people would be happy enough to grant permission, with credit.
You obviously haven’t given any thought as to why a person plagiarizes. When someone presents something that is very well said, they’ll receive accolades, signal boosting, prestige, respect, references, and in many cases, money. And you don’t think it’s worth a toss that someone receives all that for the work someone else did? Perhaps you’re confused by the word plagiarize. Substitute stealing. Or theft.
Caine
Yep.
There’s something called “quoting”. It’s well respected in both academia and the general public. Nobody’d give a toss had she said “let me quote this from Matt Dillahunty” and linked to the original video in the description. The fact that she chose not to do so but instead acted as if those were her own words shows her dishonesty.
If Jaclyn Glenn plagiarized Dawkins, would she have *any* defenders? A benefit of Glenn plagiarizing people less popular, less powerful, than her, is that it is less likely that her own popularity with her fans, or her association with American Atheists and the Richard Dawkins Foundation, will suffer. She may be lazy, but she knows how to keep her anti-feminist fans happy.
@28 kellym — Right! That’s where the rubber hits the road, in both directions, that degree of fame. I remember in high school where kids would never plagiarize Cliff Notes or Harpers or The Atlantic, but perhaps some minor poetry magazine their older sister subscribed to. And they still got caught, because guess what, that “minor” magazine might be just the sort of thing sitting on the coffee table in the English Department’s smoking room. The Internet heightens that scrutiny — if you suspect that someone is mouthing a script, you can type in the exact phrase, and look for hits.
So at the level of Dawkins, his fame will mean that it’s deucedly difficult to plagiarize him without getting caught. But at the level of Jaclyn Glenn, she has a sufficient number of viral fanboys (do your worst with that phrase) that she is subject the scrutiny that fame confers. So, just as she would have stepped in it by plagiarizing Dawkins, so would, oh, say, Melissa McEwan for plagiarizing Tom Boggioni. Neither is quite a household name, but they’re out there, selling their words.
If this had been an eighth-grader posting an In Defense Of Atheism video, and plagiarizing almost verbatim from anyone from Darwin to PZ, just as an exercise in pimply polemics, I disagree somewhat with some commenters above — they are not publishing in any real sense, nor submitting it as an academic work of originality. It’s hardly different from pretending you invented a joke that you actually heard somebody else tell (which we all did, at some level or another, between ages 6 and 17). Or telling a story that actually happened to some other acquaintance, but you insert yourself into the first-person narrative when you tell it to somebody else, who will never ever meet the person to whom it actually happened. That a child, or some sad basement dweller, might essentially do that online is not terribly concerning to me. Remember the babysitter on LSD who put the chicken in the crib and the baby in the oven? She lived right around the corner from every child who ever re-told that story! So did the guy in the closet with the Batman costume whose girlfriend tricked men into coming home and getting Bat-raped, for every young adult who ever re-told it. There’s a degree of human nature in making a story your own.
But not if you are trading on your semi-fame in order to make money.
This is not Plagiarism, sure she is saying the same thing as 1000 other Atheists, including Matt. She spins the arguments her own way, and Matt is not the origin of these ideas, nor solely capable of presenting said arguments. Is it possible she was influence by Matt, sure, it is also likely possible they read someone else’s identical arguments. This is nothing new, I was making these arguments years before youtube was a reality, before Matt recorded his version.
Matt utilizes more elegant words, she uses “kisses god’s ass”, she is not using verbatim what Matt states, this is not plagiarism.
Steve: She has a history of plagiarizing. This isn’t the first time. A few words have been changed around but it’s still incredibly similar. If this was the first time, sure, we could perhaps make the argument that she was just restating what she heard elsewhere, but this isn’t the first time. He has a now established history of plagiarizing.
She*, not he!
I’m curious if the same rules of plagiarism can really apply to youtube videos as they do to the written word. The “tornado assembling a 747” meme gets used often enough by both creationists (as an argument) and atheists (to counter it), but rarely do they credit who they heard it from. Good or popular arguments get repeated, and often miscredited (eg. Sam Harris was corrected on a quote he attributed to Hitchens). I can understand the complaint if someone’s video was almost a word by word copy of another’s video, particularly if they are earning money from it, but using good points you have heard elsewhere in mostly your own words shouldn’t be a crime. It would also be a pretty boring video if you had to add every few seconds “but as Hitchen’s said,…,and as Dawkins was quoted,…, and that great point by Matt D.,…” if you were attempting to rebutt a creationist video that used a lot of the old debunked arguments.
@Michael (#33)
Did you even read the comment thread?
michael
Which is exactly what has happened here.
So that would make using their words without attribution what? Moral? Not plagiarism? Because it’s more entertaining?
If you don’t want to use others’ words, write your own. There’s a bazillion ways to make the not terribly new argument about how christian forgiveness is the opposite of just, from raping altair boys to the KZ guard (as opposed to the Jew in the gas chamber) and so on. At least have the decency to invest 5 minutes into coming up with your own example and your own fucking wording.
And, as if in reply to my #25, here’s #30, saying it’s not plagiarism, in apparent ignorance of both what plagiarism entails and Glenn’s public history of multiple offences.
There’s a difference between rephrasing a common argument (as everybody does) and making slight/superficial changes to conceal the fact that you’ve lifted it wholesale (or making no changes at all, in at least one case of Glenn’s). If Glenn thought Dillahunty’s wording of a particular argument was good enough to share in one of her videos then, as I suggested upthread, she could’ve used relevant clips or quotes and added her own thoughts – or just mirrored the entire video on her channel (with permission). She didn’t do that, which basically implies ignorance (which can only be excused if she didn’t write that script herself) or theft (which really can’t be excused – not after the first offence [which this isn’t], anyway).
Anyway, this is the internet, where everything is instantly searchable. Though that makes it very easy to steal others’ work, it makes it even easier to check if anything you ever posted online has been lifted. If you’re a plagiarist in this day and age, you better be a damn good one, because the Google Overlords aren’t easily hoodwinked.
Michael #33
Videos can be copyrighted, and IIRC, presumed to be copyrighted unless explicitly put into the public domain by the author. So yes, unless you can show “fair use” in court, it is plagiarism.
I’m honestly curious as to how this is in any way confusing. Passing off another’s work as your own is baseline fraudulent; doing so to gain income is almost always illegal. The precise method or medium is irrelevant.
@33
People regularly file DMCA complaints for violation of copyright on youtube. That’s because everyone has the right to be recognised as the creator of a work and are rightly annoyed when people don’t respect that right.
I don’t understand why youtube should be any different to a TV or radio station, a newspaper, a magazine, blog, twitter/FB feed or any other media entity. The fact that youtubers are mostly unpaid amateurs shouldn’t – and doesn’t – matter. However, when professional, paid youtubers make money off a video that rips off someone else’s work, it’s even worse because there’s the potential to earn money they’re not entitled to OR deprive the person they stole from.
In the case of Glenn stealing from Dillahunty, though, it seems pretty clear he’s more annoyed by the insult of having her take credit for his words than by anything else. As I would be.
To restate my opinion of her serial transgressions: either someone’s writing plagiarised scripts for her and she doesn’t check their work, or she writes for herself and doesn’t understand copyright – or doesn’t care about it.
Hank Says
I’m getting the impression that those saying “it’s not plagiarism cause she doesn’t use Matt’s words 1:1” and those saying “ahhh, does it reallyto matter?” have no clue about
1. What plagiarism actually means
2. What it takes to make a coherent video/blogpost (even more so when you have to do it live).
It’s not just plagiarizing Matt, it’s profiting off of work Matt did for the ACA, something the ACA has explicitly told people not to do:
From: http://www.atheist-experience.com/fans/
From: http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/12/16/copyright-change-for-the-atheist-experience/
Emphasis mine.
Also, the clip that was plagiarized looks to be from before the “All Rights Reserved” change above. But, the license the ACA used before then was the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0, so it’s still a violation because it was used on Glenn’s monetized YouTube channel and it didn’t include attribution.
All of that said, a reproduction of the content of a video clip isn’t the same as just reproducing the original video clip itself. In some ways it’s worse, since at least the original video has Matt’s face and voice, Ray sitting there and the on screen graphics that would give some clues where to find the original source (and donate money, etc). And I doubt the ACA would want to pursue anything beyond a polite email saying: “Please don’t do that.”
@33 Michael, @30 Steve Cook
It seems doubtful that either of you have watched the video or read Giliell brilliant comment @14. Here is the key part: