Comments on: Lehrer’s Victim-Laden Crime

By: Blake

Blake — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:02:12 +0000

On a different matter, by definition there *might* be such a thing as “self-plagiarism.”

The appropriate term would be fraud.

That’s what we call it when someone passes something off as what it is not, and/or deliberately and misleadingly fails to disclose relevant information.

And it’s not just whether the editor would mind, but also the reader – because while it’s the editor being defrauded (being sold a reprint and being led to believe it’s first rights), but the reader is ultimately the one being lied to. Would the reader care if they knew the truth?

I’m guessing the answer to that question is probably linked into the question, “why didn’t the blogger simply quote his old earlier self honestly?”

By: David Mills

David Mills — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:25:01 +0000

David Nickol: I didn’t say passing off old work as new was comparable to plagiarism. (Of course they’re *comparable*, but you mean “close to equivalent.”) But if you’ll read the second link to which you’re reacting, it reports that he did the latter as well.

On a different matter, by definition there *might* be such a thing as “self-plagiarism.” I don’t like the term, but it depends on your definition and whether you emphasize the taking from another or the lack of proper attribution. We don’t have another term for reusing your own material without telling your reader when you should, so people use “self-plagiarism.”

By: GeneOssining

GeneOssining — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:55:46 +0000

We expect writers not to repeat themselves, but we apply different rules to those who speak in public. I think I remember Fr Neuhaus recalling advice he received from Abraham Joshua Heschel.
It was early in Richard Neuhaus’s career, and he was beginning to get public attention. He needed to give a speech in, let’s say St Louis, and he did not have time to prepare; he did have, however, a speech that had been well-received in, oh, San Francisco. Could he in good conscience re-use the earlier speech?
Rabbi Heschel told him not to worry that the people in St Louis knew what he had said in San Francisco.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:51:14 +0000

I have read How We Decide and Imagine, and I found them both very intelligently written, informative, and entertaining. It is disappointing to hear that Johah Lehrer recycled old writings in his New Yorker blog, and it is very appropriate that he is in the doghouse for it. However, but I don't believe Lehrer committed a "crime" or that the information is "damning." By definition, there is no such thing as "self-plagiarism." Passing off your old work as new work without acknowledging it is indefensible, but it is hardly comparable to passing off someone else's work as your own. You can't steal from yourself.