Thinking about the previous post:
When I initially began working with computer game theory, it was always easier for me when somebody violently criticized me than when they actually agreed. It seemed kind of awkward when somebody had actually been influenced by something I’d written or said. I am not as manically focused on antagonism these days, but there still are some fuzzy boundaries between 1) what should be a clear reference, 2) what is something that has become a common meme, and 3) what is an idea that is so obvious that everybody has come up with it on their own.
I recently reviewed a paper whose main point was essentially identical to a posting I had made on a mailing list – the author was also on the mailing list. I still don’t know whether it was 1) plagiarism, 2) an idea I had launched into the world that sailed of on its own, or 3) me overestimating my own ingenuity. And I still don’t know how to decide.
Skip to content
My name is Jesper Juul, and I am a Ludologist [researcher of the design, meaning, culture, and politics of games]. This is my blog on game research and other important things.
Plagiarism is a pretty serious offense, and is fairly easily proved if the work is a copy or close facsimile of the original.
As far as for creative or accidental borrowing, that seems inevitable This world of video game theory is a bit of a crowded island at this point. Lots of elbows in faces unintentionally. This is not to say the people shouldn’t try and give credit to sources _and_ inspirations. But it’s inevitable that exposure to the flow of a mail list could plant similar ideas that are developed in a fashion similar to the original–sort of a white room reinvention of the same concept. That is to say, you probably are not imagining things.
Did you ask the person you though was borrowing if they thought they owed you any credit? That would be the real test of integrity–their response.
I would also like to see the piece you refer to.
In my (limited) experience, I find that there are a lot of people at any time buzzing around the same sort of ideas for articles that I have had, and thus I feel the need to try to say something useful and novel to make writing an article worthwhile.
As David said, it’s rather a crowded field. There’s maybe (at this early stage) not enough analysis to go around. I know that a good portion of my time spent reading other people’s papers and articles is used to adjust their reasoning into my own thought patterns: this is a direct result of people coming to similar obvious conclusions from very different perspectives. And it’s really rather irritating, because you can see two people arguing up a storm, yet if they would be a little less stubborn, they’ll probably find that they’re making the exact same point!
Don’t feel bad, Jesper. If it was plagiarism, then at the very least, you inspired someone to write a paper on the strength of your words. (Probably rose tinted glasses, sorry).
I can’t really show you the piece I’m talking about, since this would be to openly accuse the writer of plagiarism. Sorry about being boring and secretive.
Perhaps some of the question is what status a posting on a mailing list has – is it informal conversation in a big group or is it akin to an official publication?
Good question – I’m sure it’s been debated all over the net since its early days.
My guess would be that the degree of formality, secrecy or what-have-you varies from group to group. Maybe it should be up to each newsgroup / forum / chatroom to determine their policy on such matters.
All they don’t give you a precise answer, the Association of Internet Researchers Ethical Guidelines can give you a pointer to some current positions on the “publicness” of listservs plus to current literature on the matter, see especially p. 6-8. http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf