Bad artists copy. Great artists steal. January 18, 2011 3:32 PM Subscribe
Back in March 2009, I posted this quite thoroughly researched FPP about how Nobel Prize winner Dr. Luc Montagnier had fallen in with the quack disciples of the late Dr. Jacques Benveniste. It didn't go well.
Now I've found this October 2009 article in Andy Lewis' admirable Quackometer blog, which, erm, looks awfully familiar in parts.
Let's list the coincidences:
1) The title, to start with. (Benveniste has been until now the only person to earn the Ig Nobel twice).
2) The first picture in the Quackometer article. Montagnier sitting behind a "Fondation Benveniste" sign. Where could that come from? No image tags in MeFi, but read one of my in-thread comments:
...in the second video in the "touting his approval" link, Montagnier is sitting right behind a sign that says "Fondation Benveniste"
Of course, Montagnier's Quackometer mugshot is a screengrab of just that scene...
3) At about mid-article, a mention of René-Prosper Blondlot, an historic case of scientific self-delusion which I also mentioned in another in-thread comment. The coincidences then start hitting hard and fast:
4) A link to a Daily Telegraph article reporting a patent dispute between Montagnier and a Bruno Robert. Check.
5) A mention that both Montagnier and Robert have filed patent applications for basically the same crackpot device. Check.
6) A link to Montagnier's patent application, retrieved through the Espacenet database. Check.
7) Figure 9 of Montagnier's patent application, which I explicitly mentioned in the same in-thread comment. Check.
8) A link to the English translation (the original being in French) of the Written Opinion of the examiner in charge of the International Search Report for Montagnier's patent application, retrieved through the World Intellectual Property Organisation's Patentscope database. A really, really, really obscure document, that could only be found by a patent buff. Check.
9) A damning quote from page 10/11 of said Written Opinion. Check.
10) A link to a DARPA report regarding a device developed by Benveniste (in fact, a direct link to Fig. 1 in said report, which is nearly identical to abovementioned Fig. 9 in Montagnier's patent). Also found in the latter in-thread comment.
I've written to Lewis, gently ribbing him for not crediting me in his article (that was some research work, you know), and he's replied denying any knowledge of "my blog". But if three coincidences are "enemy action", ten tightly clustered coincidences are definitely way too many. Now, I strongly approve of Lewis' anti-quackery fight, and I enjoyed his article (apart from the robbing-me-blind business). I'd just settle for a private apology and a small mention in his blog.
Now, what should I do?
Let's list the coincidences:
1) The title, to start with. (Benveniste has been until now the only person to earn the Ig Nobel twice).
2) The first picture in the Quackometer article. Montagnier sitting behind a "Fondation Benveniste" sign. Where could that come from? No image tags in MeFi, but read one of my in-thread comments:
...in the second video in the "touting his approval" link, Montagnier is sitting right behind a sign that says "Fondation Benveniste"
Of course, Montagnier's Quackometer mugshot is a screengrab of just that scene...
3) At about mid-article, a mention of René-Prosper Blondlot, an historic case of scientific self-delusion which I also mentioned in another in-thread comment. The coincidences then start hitting hard and fast:
4) A link to a Daily Telegraph article reporting a patent dispute between Montagnier and a Bruno Robert. Check.
5) A mention that both Montagnier and Robert have filed patent applications for basically the same crackpot device. Check.
6) A link to Montagnier's patent application, retrieved through the Espacenet database. Check.
7) Figure 9 of Montagnier's patent application, which I explicitly mentioned in the same in-thread comment. Check.
8) A link to the English translation (the original being in French) of the Written Opinion of the examiner in charge of the International Search Report for Montagnier's patent application, retrieved through the World Intellectual Property Organisation's Patentscope database. A really, really, really obscure document, that could only be found by a patent buff. Check.
9) A damning quote from page 10/11 of said Written Opinion. Check.
10) A link to a DARPA report regarding a device developed by Benveniste (in fact, a direct link to Fig. 1 in said report, which is nearly identical to abovementioned Fig. 9 in Montagnier's patent). Also found in the latter in-thread comment.
I've written to Lewis, gently ribbing him for not crediting me in his article (that was some research work, you know), and he's replied denying any knowledge of "my blog". But if three coincidences are "enemy action", ten tightly clustered coincidences are definitely way too many. Now, I strongly approve of Lewis' anti-quackery fight, and I enjoyed his article (apart from the robbing-me-blind business). I'd just settle for a private apology and a small mention in his blog.
Now, what should I do?
Post a link to the article on Metatalk and say "Look! Someone paid attention to us!"
posted by crunchland at 3:36 PM on January 18, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by crunchland at 3:36 PM on January 18, 2011 [5 favorites]
A little dance?
posted by flabdablet at 3:41 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 3:41 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]
I've never heard of Andy Lewis, but I have heard of you, so you win.
I guess it's conceivable that someone else stole your MeFi post and that Lewis stole it from them.
posted by lukemeister at 3:42 PM on January 18, 2011
I guess it's conceivable that someone else stole your MeFi post and that Lewis stole it from them.
posted by lukemeister at 3:42 PM on January 18, 2011
FIAMO.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 3:48 PM on January 18, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by Admiral Haddock at 3:48 PM on January 18, 2011 [4 favorites]
Kneecap him.
posted by fixedgear at 3:51 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by fixedgear at 3:51 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]
I suggest flaming out. We haven't had one of those in a while.
You should get Neil Gaiman involved. It's be like that "Cook's Source" all over again.
Just to be clear, you're calling out someone that isn't even a member here? I think that breaks the guidelines.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:55 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
You should get Neil Gaiman involved. It's be like that "Cook's Source" all over again.
Just to be clear, you're calling out someone that isn't even a member here? I think that breaks the guidelines.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:55 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
Kill, eat. Dibs on leg.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:57 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Meatbomb at 3:57 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
cjorgensen: " Just to be clear, you're calling out someone that isn't even a member here?
Are we sure he's not a member?
I think that breaks the guidelines."
Hrm. I was gonna cite this link, but illiad was a member then.
posted by zarq at 4:02 PM on January 18, 2011
Are we sure he's not a member?
I think that breaks the guidelines."
Hrm. I was gonna cite this link, but illiad was a member then.
posted by zarq at 4:02 PM on January 18, 2011
Sargent Shriver and Don Kirschner both died today. Discuss.
posted by fixedgear at 4:05 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by fixedgear at 4:05 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'd just settle for a private apology and a small mention in his blog.
Seems like you want both a private, and public apology.
I'll admit, 10 "coincidences" seems pretty unlikely, but there is also the chance he read your post, or someone fwd'd it to him and he forgot about it. Then 5 or 6 months started to write a similar piece and ganked your work without meaning to do so.
Regardless, your post was almost two years ago, his post, about a year and half. It's done. I would move on .
posted by timsteil at 4:06 PM on January 18, 2011
Seems like you want both a private, and public apology.
I'll admit, 10 "coincidences" seems pretty unlikely, but there is also the chance he read your post, or someone fwd'd it to him and he forgot about it. Then 5 or 6 months started to write a similar piece and ganked your work without meaning to do so.
Regardless, your post was almost two years ago, his post, about a year and half. It's done. I would move on .
posted by timsteil at 4:06 PM on January 18, 2011
Just to be clear, you're calling out someone that isn't even a member here? I think that breaks the guidelines.
It's more that it's in kind of weird territory than any brightline guidelines problem. The weird situation with illiad being discussed here certainly didn't hinge on his being a member, that would have been a problem and something justifiable to talk about in Metatalk either way.
The thing here is, well, this is some guy who as far as we know doesn't have a voice here and with whom as far as we know no one here other than Skeptic has a direct connection with of any sort, so I'm not sure what we can do here besides say "huh, that sucks if he did that".
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:08 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
It's more that it's in kind of weird territory than any brightline guidelines problem. The weird situation with illiad being discussed here certainly didn't hinge on his being a member, that would have been a problem and something justifiable to talk about in Metatalk either way.
The thing here is, well, this is some guy who as far as we know doesn't have a voice here and with whom as far as we know no one here other than Skeptic has a direct connection with of any sort, so I'm not sure what we can do here besides say "huh, that sucks if he did that".
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:08 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
Damn. There goes my evil plan to start a webmagazine made up entirely of repurposed posts by Rhaomi, JHarris and filthy light thief.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:10 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:10 PM on January 18, 2011 [3 favorites]
YOU SHOULD KISS HIM
KISSSSSSSS HIIIIIIIIIIM
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:13 PM on January 18, 2011 [14 favorites]
KISSSSSSSS HIIIIIIIIIIM
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:13 PM on January 18, 2011 [14 favorites]
OK, cortex, that's a good point. I was just asking for suggestions and, I guess, venting a bit. Maybe this was more of an "Ask MeFi" post than a MeTa post, although it IS quite meta.
And timsteil, I really didn't want a "public apology". I've researched Andy Lewis and he really fights the good fight against quackery, with assorted quacks having tried to shut his blog down in the past using Britain's anti-libel laws. When I say "admirable", I'm not being sarcastic, that's why this is also weird to me. A small credit in his one-year-and-a-half old post would've sufficed, not that it would have changed much. As for your theory, let's just say that I don't believe that people can "accidentally" remember 100-character URLs...
posted by Skeptic at 4:19 PM on January 18, 2011
And timsteil, I really didn't want a "public apology". I've researched Andy Lewis and he really fights the good fight against quackery, with assorted quacks having tried to shut his blog down in the past using Britain's anti-libel laws. When I say "admirable", I'm not being sarcastic, that's why this is also weird to me. A small credit in his one-year-and-a-half old post would've sufficed, not that it would have changed much. As for your theory, let's just say that I don't believe that people can "accidentally" remember 100-character URLs...
posted by Skeptic at 4:19 PM on January 18, 2011
Metatalk is where members discuss issues that primarily concern Metafilter itself. Those that suggest that this is a "call out" of a non-member are missing the point; if an outside party is plagiarizing a MeFi post it is entirely appropriate to discuss, research, and distribute pitchforks.
An aside: it is really annoying to see people apparently waiting to pounce on any new MeTa post to suggest or outright say that the poster is a whiner, or an attention whore, or otherwise out of order. You flag it. You move on.
posted by norm at 4:19 PM on January 18, 2011 [19 favorites]
An aside: it is really annoying to see people apparently waiting to pounce on any new MeTa post to suggest or outright say that the poster is a whiner, or an attention whore, or otherwise out of order. You flag it. You move on.
posted by norm at 4:19 PM on January 18, 2011 [19 favorites]
"Only be sure always to call it, please, research."
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:31 PM on January 18, 2011
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:31 PM on January 18, 2011
You flag it. You move on.
Works for the Blue. Here it's kinda anathema to the point of metatalk.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:35 PM on January 18, 2011
Works for the Blue. Here it's kinda anathema to the point of metatalk.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:35 PM on January 18, 2011
if an outside party is plagiarizing a MeFi post it is entirely appropriate to discuss, research, and distribute pitchforks.QFT. The "meh" I'm seeing confuses and frightens me.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 4:39 PM on January 18, 2011 [4 favorites]
I don't think using links you provided is "copying" really. You found those links on the web, and so did he. Of course, it may have been easier to research for him since you put them all on one page, but there's no way to prove that is the case. If you used the best links that you found online, and he used the best links he found online (even without using the FPP), I'd expect there to be a significant amount of overlap. Now if he actually plagiarized the words you had written for the FPP, I think you'd have a legitimate beef.
posted by Roger Dodger at 4:49 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Roger Dodger at 4:49 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]
Works for the Blue. Here it's kinda anathema to the point of metatalk.
Well, let me clarify. If someone has a problem with the appropriateness of a MeTa post, flag it, and it will get closed if that's the right thing to do. If you're just here to make fun of the poster, and they don't manifestly deserve it, which happens from time to time, you should get bent.
In the meantime, any responses yet from Andy Lewis on the astonishing coincidences? I'm pretty well appalled, to be frank. I have no doubts whatever that authors borrow inspiration from Metafilter; we've seen it before. But this seems like some egregious laziness. At least vary the words and pick out different examples. Come on, man.
Also, I am independently glad this was posted because I missed it the first time, and it's a pretty sweet post.
posted by norm at 4:51 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
Well, let me clarify. If someone has a problem with the appropriateness of a MeTa post, flag it, and it will get closed if that's the right thing to do. If you're just here to make fun of the poster, and they don't manifestly deserve it, which happens from time to time, you should get bent.
In the meantime, any responses yet from Andy Lewis on the astonishing coincidences? I'm pretty well appalled, to be frank. I have no doubts whatever that authors borrow inspiration from Metafilter; we've seen it before. But this seems like some egregious laziness. At least vary the words and pick out different examples. Come on, man.
Also, I am independently glad this was posted because I missed it the first time, and it's a pretty sweet post.
posted by norm at 4:51 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
Stalk him online, then set up a blog revealing his innermost sekret/badbad thoughts; destroy his family and career.
Or, um well, just figure out a way to use this to your advantage like a good capitalist. Or just be more careful with research you actually care about.
posted by digitalprimate at 5:15 PM on January 18, 2011
Or, um well, just figure out a way to use this to your advantage like a good capitalist. Or just be more careful with research you actually care about.
posted by digitalprimate at 5:15 PM on January 18, 2011
I feel obliged to point out that Montagnier was not, in fact, the first person to win a Nobel and an Ig Nobel; that honour (?) went to André Geim earlier this year.
posted by Johnny Assay at 5:24 PM on January 18, 2011
posted by Johnny Assay at 5:24 PM on January 18, 2011
You're asserting that he's infringing on your copyright. Send a DMCA takedown notice.
posted by Justinian at 5:25 PM on January 18, 2011
posted by Justinian at 5:25 PM on January 18, 2011
Is it not plausible that given the same set of evidence, it might contain a similar set of links, figures, and assertions?
posted by artlung at 6:19 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by artlung at 6:19 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
You're asserting that he's infringing on your copyright.
Actually, as far as I can tell, Skeptic is (correctly) being careful not to assert that. Plagiarizing, perhaps. But plagiarism and copyright infringement are separate issues; although in practice there is some overlap between the two, one does not imply the other.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:23 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
Actually, as far as I can tell, Skeptic is (correctly) being careful not to assert that. Plagiarizing, perhaps. But plagiarism and copyright infringement are separate issues; although in practice there is some overlap between the two, one does not imply the other.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:23 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
and he's replied denying any knowledge of "my blog".
Wow. He's not only a plagiarist, but a liar. Puts all the skeptics with any sense of integrity to shame.
If you really want to pursue justice, find out the forums that his audience frequent; post your evidence there.
posted by polymodus at 6:27 PM on January 18, 2011
Wow. He's not only a plagiarist, but a liar. Puts all the skeptics with any sense of integrity to shame.
If you really want to pursue justice, find out the forums that his audience frequent; post your evidence there.
posted by polymodus at 6:27 PM on January 18, 2011
...there is also the chance he read your post, or someone fwd'd it to him and he forgot about it. Then 5 or 6 months started to write a similar piece and ganked your work without meaning to do so.
Aha! The Dowd Defense. Works every time (no matter how blatant the plagiarism).
posted by coolguymichael at 6:39 PM on January 18, 2011
Aha! The Dowd Defense. Works every time (no matter how blatant the plagiarism).
posted by coolguymichael at 6:39 PM on January 18, 2011
Forward him THIS thread.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:04 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:04 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
never/ever give away your best material
at least not for free.
posted by clavdivs at 7:06 PM on January 18, 2011
at least not for free.
posted by clavdivs at 7:06 PM on January 18, 2011
Finally, evidence of intelligent design.
posted by klangklangston at 7:24 PM on January 18, 2011
posted by klangklangston at 7:24 PM on January 18, 2011
Don Kirschner died?
Aw. See, I knew about Shriver.
posted by Curious Artificer at 7:30 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
Aw. See, I knew about Shriver.
posted by Curious Artificer at 7:30 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sargent Shriver and Don Kirschner both died today. Discuss.
Ever notice how you never saw them in the same room? Just sayin'.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:04 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
Ever notice how you never saw them in the same room? Just sayin'.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:04 PM on January 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
You're honestly accusing someone of stealing your links to other people's content? Yeesh.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:06 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Sys Rq at 9:06 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]
You honestly don't have a problem with a lazy magazine or newspaper writer just mining Metafilter posts for their output without so much as a hat tip? Yeesh.
posted by norm at 9:18 PM on January 18, 2011
posted by norm at 9:18 PM on January 18, 2011
Send in the clowns!
They're already here. And they disapprove of this MeTa.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:21 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]
They're already here. And they disapprove of this MeTa.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:21 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]
I went to high school with a guy named Andy Lewis and it's pretty safe to say they're all terrible.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:33 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 9:33 PM on January 18, 2011 [2 favorites]
You honestly don't have a problem with a lazy magazine or newspaper writer just mining Metafilter posts for their output without so much as a hat tip? Yeesh.
Maybe the supposed thief just happened to have "thoroughly researched" the same subject in the same manner, resulting in coincidental similarities. Where are the hat tips to Google and Wikipedia, hmm?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:28 PM on January 18, 2011
Maybe the supposed thief just happened to have "thoroughly researched" the same subject in the same manner, resulting in coincidental similarities. Where are the hat tips to Google and Wikipedia, hmm?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:28 PM on January 18, 2011
Orac – who shows up in the comment thread at Quackometer – has a worthwhile and fairly recent post about Luc Montagnier for anyone who's interested.
posted by Dumsnill at 10:51 PM on January 18, 2011
posted by Dumsnill at 10:51 PM on January 18, 2011
A good FPP should be so link dependent and so free of editorializing that even if someone copied it link for link, it would be almost undetectable.
posted by auto-correct at 11:20 PM on January 18, 2011
posted by auto-correct at 11:20 PM on January 18, 2011
Maybe the supposed thief just happened to have "thoroughly researched" the same subject in the same manner, resulting in coincidental similarities. Where are the hat tips to Google and Wikipedia, hmm?
If you think these were the sort of links one can unearth using just Google and Wikipedia, you are hugely mistaken. Also: quoting the same sentence in an eleven-page document? Not a coincidence.
posted by Skeptic at 11:33 PM on January 18, 2011
If you think these were the sort of links one can unearth using just Google and Wikipedia, you are hugely mistaken. Also: quoting the same sentence in an eleven-page document? Not a coincidence.
posted by Skeptic at 11:33 PM on January 18, 2011
quoting the same sentence in an eleven-page document? Not a coincidence.
Presumably when acting as the skeptic from which you have derived a moniker, you are aware that coincidences not only occur frequently, those occurrences are a mathematical certainty.
Not that this counters your claim, but you must be aware that the more obscure or specialized a topic, the more likely there is to be overlap in relevant cites and quotable quotes. Also, in the 11-page document, the first 2 pages are template form, and the form's "certain observations on the international application" does not begin until page 8.
Of the patent examiner's form's remaining text, much of it would not read well out of context, and personally, the quote you choose, with possibly different trimming (the article also uses different trimming) would have most likely been the quote I chose for a reader not familiar with the entire document. Either that, or the very end paragraph, although it is not quite as strongly put, nor as independent of context.
You perhaps still have case to be made for overly zealous borrowing of sources by Quackometer, but that case doesn't seem to be as strong as you claim simply from the inclusion of the patent examiner's quote as a smoking gun.
posted by mdevore at 2:31 AM on January 19, 2011 [5 favorites]
Presumably when acting as the skeptic from which you have derived a moniker, you are aware that coincidences not only occur frequently, those occurrences are a mathematical certainty.
Not that this counters your claim, but you must be aware that the more obscure or specialized a topic, the more likely there is to be overlap in relevant cites and quotable quotes. Also, in the 11-page document, the first 2 pages are template form, and the form's "certain observations on the international application" does not begin until page 8.
Of the patent examiner's form's remaining text, much of it would not read well out of context, and personally, the quote you choose, with possibly different trimming (the article also uses different trimming) would have most likely been the quote I chose for a reader not familiar with the entire document. Either that, or the very end paragraph, although it is not quite as strongly put, nor as independent of context.
You perhaps still have case to be made for overly zealous borrowing of sources by Quackometer, but that case doesn't seem to be as strong as you claim simply from the inclusion of the patent examiner's quote as a smoking gun.
posted by mdevore at 2:31 AM on January 19, 2011 [5 favorites]
mdevore I agree that the quote on its own is not a smoking gun, but a good sceptic also has a very good tool, namely good old Ockham's razor. Which one of these two hypotheses is likelier?
a) Lewis never read my post, as he claims. He found the Daily Telegraph on his own, then searched Montagnier's patent in the same Espacenet database as I did, and went over to the Patentscope database to obtain the same English translation of the same obscure bureaucratic document as I did. He read the document, decided to quote the same sentence as I did, and searched the Internets for a picture of Benveniste's device, which he found, as it happens, in the same DARPA report as I did. He also found the same French-language video of Montagnier as I did, and proceeded to pluck from it the same scene I mentioned. Finally, to top it, he thought of the same Ig Nobel in-joke. Or:
B) He googled "Montagnier" and "Benveniste", easily finding my FPP (MeFi ranks surprisingly highly in Google searches), and is now lying.
So, Mr. Ockham, what do you think?
posted by Skeptic at 4:48 AM on January 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
a) Lewis never read my post, as he claims. He found the Daily Telegraph on his own, then searched Montagnier's patent in the same Espacenet database as I did, and went over to the Patentscope database to obtain the same English translation of the same obscure bureaucratic document as I did. He read the document, decided to quote the same sentence as I did, and searched the Internets for a picture of Benveniste's device, which he found, as it happens, in the same DARPA report as I did. He also found the same French-language video of Montagnier as I did, and proceeded to pluck from it the same scene I mentioned. Finally, to top it, he thought of the same Ig Nobel in-joke. Or:
B) He googled "Montagnier" and "Benveniste", easily finding my FPP (MeFi ranks surprisingly highly in Google searches), and is now lying.
So, Mr. Ockham, what do you think?
posted by Skeptic at 4:48 AM on January 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
So, Mr. Ockham
What do you think?
Too much conspiracy
Or too much to drink?
Bam bam bam
bam bam etc.
Nah, you're probably right, but the whole thing also seems intensely trivial
posted by Dumsnill at 5:36 AM on January 19, 2011 [2 favorites]
What do you think?
Too much conspiracy
Or too much to drink?
Bam bam bam
bam bam etc.
Nah, you're probably right, but the whole thing also seems intensely trivial
posted by Dumsnill at 5:36 AM on January 19, 2011 [2 favorites]
Now, what should I do?
He publishes a contact e-mail address on his site, so why not write to him? Maybe a nice, polite message along the lines of "Hey, I noticed this article you wrote in October 2009 has a lot of similarities to a MetaFilter post I made a few months earlier. What do you think about that?"
Just see what he says?
posted by FishBike at 6:08 AM on January 19, 2011
He publishes a contact e-mail address on his site, so why not write to him? Maybe a nice, polite message along the lines of "Hey, I noticed this article you wrote in October 2009 has a lot of similarities to a MetaFilter post I made a few months earlier. What do you think about that?"
Just see what he says?
posted by FishBike at 6:08 AM on January 19, 2011
I think he did:
I've written to Lewis, gently ribbing him for not crediting me in his article (that was some research work, you know), and he's replied denying any knowledge of "my blog".
posted by SpiffyRob at 6:47 AM on January 19, 2011
I've written to Lewis, gently ribbing him for not crediting me in his article (that was some research work, you know), and he's replied denying any knowledge of "my blog".
posted by SpiffyRob at 6:47 AM on January 19, 2011
I think he did:
I think you're right. I'm going to claim that part didn't show up on my screen the first time and blame HTML 5 for it somehow.
posted by FishBike at 7:34 AM on January 19, 2011 [2 favorites]
I think you're right. I'm going to claim that part didn't show up on my screen the first time and blame HTML 5 for it somehow.
posted by FishBike at 7:34 AM on January 19, 2011 [2 favorites]
No doubt that portion of the text was obscured by a strange orange shield-like icon.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:59 AM on January 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:59 AM on January 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
SOAK HIM FOR CRUTCHY
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:44 AM on January 19, 2011
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:44 AM on January 19, 2011
He might think that you're accusing him of stealing this from some random personal blog, when really, he just saw it on MeFi and doesn't connect that with you.
posted by klangklangston at 10:36 AM on January 19, 2011
posted by klangklangston at 10:36 AM on January 19, 2011
If he looks at his referrer logs, there isn't much need to actually send him the url to this thread. Chances are, he got more traffic yesterday and today that he's managed to get in the last 12 months combined. No. There's little doubt he's aware of and reading every word on this page.
posted by crunchland at 11:15 AM on January 19, 2011
posted by crunchland at 11:15 AM on January 19, 2011
My question is, if someone else wanted to research this, what other path would they take? From your description, it sounds like the path you took to get the material you got is practically the only path available. In which case, not so surprising to think someone else would take it.
More to the point, if he DID steal your links, then clearly he isn't going to apologize for it, or he already would have.
If Lewis had published this in a newspaper or magazine I'd suggest contacting his editor. But since he published it on his own blog, I don't see what else there is to be done, beyond shaking your fist at him in an irritated fashion.
posted by ErikaB at 11:26 AM on January 19, 2011 [2 favorites]
More to the point, if he DID steal your links, then clearly he isn't going to apologize for it, or he already would have.
If Lewis had published this in a newspaper or magazine I'd suggest contacting his editor. But since he published it on his own blog, I don't see what else there is to be done, beyond shaking your fist at him in an irritated fashion.
posted by ErikaB at 11:26 AM on January 19, 2011 [2 favorites]
If you think these were the sort of links one can unearth using just Google and Wikipedia, you are hugely mistaken.
Your links were:
1. Wikipedia itsel
2. The Nobel site
3. The Dallas Voice
4. Colombre.it
5. A PDF on Geocities
6. Wikipedia again
7. A PDF on espacenet
8. Wikipedia again
9. Something I can't get to load
10. The Telegraph
11. Another PDF on espacenet
12. Science Magazine
If you didn't get these from Google and Wikipedia, you sure wasted a lot of time.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:28 AM on January 19, 2011 [2 favorites]
Your links were:
1. Wikipedia itsel
2. The Nobel site
3. The Dallas Voice
4. Colombre.it
5. A PDF on Geocities
6. Wikipedia again
7. A PDF on espacenet
8. Wikipedia again
9. Something I can't get to load
10. The Telegraph
11. Another PDF on espacenet
12. Science Magazine
If you didn't get these from Google and Wikipedia, you sure wasted a lot of time.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:28 AM on January 19, 2011 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: shaking our fist in an irritated fashion
posted by artlung at 11:48 AM on January 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by artlung at 11:48 AM on January 19, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sys Rq Numbers 7, 9 and 11 certainly came from neither Wikipedia, nor Google (if you can't get to load #9, it's your problem, nor mine: it works), and he used precisely two of those three. He also picked another link from one of my in-thread comments which couldn't have possibly been a direct Google hit. My FPP, on the other, could be much more easily found.
posted by Skeptic at 12:39 PM on January 19, 2011
posted by Skeptic at 12:39 PM on January 19, 2011
Well, gosh, how did you find that stuff, then? What makes you so sure Lewis couldn't possibly have found it in the same manner, or indeed by any method other than having stolen your links?
Hate to break it to you, but people commit that eggregious offense at least a dozen times a day right on the front page of MetaFilter. It's basically how the internet works. Content creators deserve credit; some guy merely pointing to other people's content, not so much.
Deal with it.
Anyway, it seems to me that your post was lucky not to have been deleted on the basis that it was axe-grindy and editorial, and that the ensuiing thread "didn't go well" in large part because you were especially hostile throughout.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:47 PM on January 19, 2011
Hate to break it to you, but people commit that eggregious offense at least a dozen times a day right on the front page of MetaFilter. It's basically how the internet works. Content creators deserve credit; some guy merely pointing to other people's content, not so much.
Deal with it.
Anyway, it seems to me that your post was lucky not to have been deleted on the basis that it was axe-grindy and editorial, and that the ensuiing thread "didn't go well" in large part because you were especially hostile throughout.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:47 PM on January 19, 2011
Damn, Sys Rq, first you wanted this MeTa thread deleted, now my original MeFi FPP too. And on one hand you claim that I merely pointed to other guys' content, whereas on the other hand you consider that I editorialized too much. I wonder who's being hostile and grinding an axe here. Did I inadvertently shit on your cereals or what?
posted by Skeptic at 2:44 AM on January 20, 2011
posted by Skeptic at 2:44 AM on January 20, 2011
Wow, looks like Skeptic got skepticized.
Someone give him a hug. Sys Rq, too.
posted by owtytrof at 7:05 AM on January 20, 2011
Someone give him a hug. Sys Rq, too.
posted by owtytrof at 7:05 AM on January 20, 2011
Damn, Sys Rq, first you wanted this MeTa thread deleted, now my original MeFi FPP too.
Erm, no. I said the latter could have been deleted. I've said nothing about the worthiness of this thread beyond "Yeesh."
And on one hand you claim that I merely pointed to other guys' content, whereas on the other hand you consider that I editorialized too much.
Nope. I claimed that you claimed that he'd stolen your links; the links are what is at issue. That does not contradict the notion that you were very much pushing an agenda in your post.
I wonder who's being hostile and grinding an axe here.
Perhaps I am. You, I'm more certain about.
So, hey, I asked you a couple of questions. Were you planning on answering them?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:00 AM on January 20, 2011
Erm, no. I said the latter could have been deleted. I've said nothing about the worthiness of this thread beyond "Yeesh."
And on one hand you claim that I merely pointed to other guys' content, whereas on the other hand you consider that I editorialized too much.
Nope. I claimed that you claimed that he'd stolen your links; the links are what is at issue. That does not contradict the notion that you were very much pushing an agenda in your post.
I wonder who's being hostile and grinding an axe here.
Perhaps I am. You, I'm more certain about.
So, hey, I asked you a couple of questions. Were you planning on answering them?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:00 AM on January 20, 2011
If you wish, Sys Rq. How did I find those links?
First, the two patent applications:
I've been working in the field of patents for nearly fifteen years now, including much patent search work. When I read (in the French newspaper quoted by the Telegraph) about the dispute between Montagnier and Robert, I became curious and went to my favourite (although by no means only one) online free patent database, Espacenet, to search for those patent applications.
I searched Robert's first, and finding it was by no means easy, since I had only his name, and there are plenty of "Brunos" and "Roberts" around (Espacenet does not make the difference between first and last name). I had to use a few assumptions and tricks of the trade to finally get a result, listing them would be too tedious.
Having found Robert's patent application, finding Montagnier's was relatively easier: his is a less common name, and although he has a fair few patents to his name, they're mostly pretty serious virology stuff, whereas this one is nearly identical to Robert's.
Oh, one last thing: Directly linking to the full PDFs of the applications requires an extra step, Espacenet first shows you only the abstracts.
Now the examiner's Written Opinion:
From Espacenet, there's also a link to the European Patent Office's online file wrapper (it's called Epoline). I looked into it to see if I could learn anything about the ownership dispute between Montagnier and Robert. I didn't find that, but rummaging around I found the Written Opinion and that priceless sentence. Unfortunately, it was in French, which was the language of the patent application. To see if I could find more, since this was an International Patent Application, I went to the World Intellectual Patent Organization's website, and into its online database Patentscope. There I looked into WIPO's file wrapper for the same application, and found, to my great relief, that there was a PDF of an English translation of that Written Opinion.
Finally, Figure 1 in the DARPA paper:
In my patent search, I'd found out that Montagnier had subsequently filed more patent applications in the same line. In one of them, a certain Jamel Aissa figured as co-inventor. Looking for links between Montagnier and Benveniste, I googled together Benveniste and Jamel Aissa, finding, among other things, an online version of that DARPA paper, with thumbnails of the drawings, which taught me that Aissa was a former assistant of Benveniste and very closely linked to that particular line of research. Clicking on the thumbnail of Fig. 1 took me to a separate URL with a larger version of the picture, which I linked to because it could be seen that it was the same device shown in Montagnier's patent applications.
I hope this was a brief enough answer to your question. I hope this also clarifies why I don't think that Lewis could have posted those same links "by coincidence". I hope you can answer this question: how comes that it is to *me* to explain myself?
posted by Skeptic at 1:25 PM on January 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
First, the two patent applications:
I've been working in the field of patents for nearly fifteen years now, including much patent search work. When I read (in the French newspaper quoted by the Telegraph) about the dispute between Montagnier and Robert, I became curious and went to my favourite (although by no means only one) online free patent database, Espacenet, to search for those patent applications.
I searched Robert's first, and finding it was by no means easy, since I had only his name, and there are plenty of "Brunos" and "Roberts" around (Espacenet does not make the difference between first and last name). I had to use a few assumptions and tricks of the trade to finally get a result, listing them would be too tedious.
Having found Robert's patent application, finding Montagnier's was relatively easier: his is a less common name, and although he has a fair few patents to his name, they're mostly pretty serious virology stuff, whereas this one is nearly identical to Robert's.
Oh, one last thing: Directly linking to the full PDFs of the applications requires an extra step, Espacenet first shows you only the abstracts.
Now the examiner's Written Opinion:
From Espacenet, there's also a link to the European Patent Office's online file wrapper (it's called Epoline). I looked into it to see if I could learn anything about the ownership dispute between Montagnier and Robert. I didn't find that, but rummaging around I found the Written Opinion and that priceless sentence. Unfortunately, it was in French, which was the language of the patent application. To see if I could find more, since this was an International Patent Application, I went to the World Intellectual Patent Organization's website, and into its online database Patentscope. There I looked into WIPO's file wrapper for the same application, and found, to my great relief, that there was a PDF of an English translation of that Written Opinion.
Finally, Figure 1 in the DARPA paper:
In my patent search, I'd found out that Montagnier had subsequently filed more patent applications in the same line. In one of them, a certain Jamel Aissa figured as co-inventor. Looking for links between Montagnier and Benveniste, I googled together Benveniste and Jamel Aissa, finding, among other things, an online version of that DARPA paper, with thumbnails of the drawings, which taught me that Aissa was a former assistant of Benveniste and very closely linked to that particular line of research. Clicking on the thumbnail of Fig. 1 took me to a separate URL with a larger version of the picture, which I linked to because it could be seen that it was the same device shown in Montagnier's patent applications.
I hope this was a brief enough answer to your question. I hope this also clarifies why I don't think that Lewis could have posted those same links "by coincidence". I hope you can answer this question: how comes that it is to *me* to explain myself?
posted by Skeptic at 1:25 PM on January 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Correction: WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization.
posted by Skeptic at 1:39 PM on January 20, 2011
posted by Skeptic at 1:39 PM on January 20, 2011
I hope you can answer this question: how comes that it is to *me* to explain myself?
That question doesn't make any sense, but I think the answer is:
a) because you're the one making the complaint,
b) because evidence is more compelling than a hunch, and
c) because we're not telepathic.
Having provided clear answers to my questions, you have made your case rather well, and your reaction to Lewis' post no longer seems like petty, narcissistic paranoia. I sympathize with your frustration, now that it is apparent that it has a basis in reality.
I still think you're overreacting, though. The purpose of MetaFilter, it seems, is to share interesting links. Share. Once you hit "Post," there's absolutely no use being possessive about them.
Metaphor: A man catches a fish, then releases it back into the lake. When a second man catches the same fish, the first man says, "Hey! That's my fish! I caught it first, and I worked really hard!" The second man shrugs. The first man then calls to all the other people on the lake, "That man caught my fish! I caught that fish first! It's my fish!" Upon returning to shore, the first man is put in a straightjacket and hauled away in a van marked "Loony Bin."
posted by Sys Rq at 7:08 PM on January 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
That question doesn't make any sense, but I think the answer is:
a) because you're the one making the complaint,
b) because evidence is more compelling than a hunch, and
c) because we're not telepathic.
Having provided clear answers to my questions, you have made your case rather well, and your reaction to Lewis' post no longer seems like petty, narcissistic paranoia. I sympathize with your frustration, now that it is apparent that it has a basis in reality.
I still think you're overreacting, though. The purpose of MetaFilter, it seems, is to share interesting links. Share. Once you hit "Post," there's absolutely no use being possessive about them.
Metaphor: A man catches a fish, then releases it back into the lake. When a second man catches the same fish, the first man says, "Hey! That's my fish! I caught it first, and I worked really hard!" The second man shrugs. The first man then calls to all the other people on the lake, "That man caught my fish! I caught that fish first! It's my fish!" Upon returning to shore, the first man is put in a straightjacket and hauled away in a van marked "Loony Bin."
posted by Sys Rq at 7:08 PM on January 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
The purpose of MetaFilter, it seems, is to share interesting links. Share. Once you hit "Post," there's absolutely no use being possessive about them.
Pfft, you're just sayin' that 'cuz yer posts ain't worth stealin'.
Mine neither. ;_;
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:14 PM on January 20, 2011
Pfft, you're just sayin' that 'cuz yer posts ain't worth stealin'.
Mine neither. ;_;
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:14 PM on January 20, 2011
Unless you used magical research methods that he could not possibly have, please stop whining.
posted by dougrayrankin at 2:40 AM on January 22, 2011
posted by dougrayrankin at 2:40 AM on January 22, 2011
Unless you used magical research methods that he could not possibly have, please stop whining.
Considering some of the pushback and aspersion-casting you got in your own MeTa, I would think you may be a little less dicky in someone else's.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:43 AM on January 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Considering some of the pushback and aspersion-casting you got in your own MeTa, I would think you may be a little less dicky in someone else's.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:43 AM on January 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Considering some of the pushback and aspersion-casting you got in your own MeTa, I would think you may be a little less dicky in someone else's.Point taken. I just agree with Sys Rq's comment and that was the first way of expressing it that came to mind.
posted by dougrayrankin at 8:29 AM on January 22, 2011
Well, I disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!
posted by dougrayrankin at 10:40 AM on January 22, 2011
posted by dougrayrankin at 10:40 AM on January 22, 2011
dougrayrankin In your place, I'd also be careful about asking about search strategies. Not that I really want to know how you came to find a video of a monkey raping a frog...
posted by Skeptic at 1:35 AM on January 23, 2011
posted by Skeptic at 1:35 AM on January 23, 2011
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by nevercalm at 3:33 PM on January 18, 2011 [11 favorites]