Previously I have stated that plagiarism was not one of the issues that I was raising concerning the so-called “Open Anthropology Cooperative” and its disrespect for boundaries and separate identities and political affiliations, let alone the officially authorized butchering of the concept of “open anthropology” on that network, now evacuated of all meaning. However, I now have to recant. For over a week now, work plagiarized from my site, and posted under the name of Nikos Gousgounis has been allowed to stand without correction on the OAC. (Knowing from past experience that history is actively rewritten on the OAC by editing and deleting, I post all of the relevant archived pieces here: [1][2][3][4][5][6][max->nikos][nikos->max]).
Before anyone once again wrongly claims that there is some sort of “surprise attack” here, the fact is that this plagiarized work has stood for over a week and was unmasked by some vigilant members of the OAC itself, people who had read the same piece on this blog and, to my surprise, even remembered it. I have also contacted Nikos Gousgounis directly, as can be seen from the links above, or you can simply view the complete thread here.
Gousgounis claims in his defense that he did not know that the article came from this site, but rather he found it on a blog of a colleague he will not or cannot name, claiming he was anonymous, and without any link to his source. Personally I have searched for a replica and have been unable to find it, nor does anyone else seem to have found it, not even Gousgounis. It may be really “out there,” and I am just unlucky in my search.
Gousgounis’ explanation still does not work however, as it does not explain why he deleted any information about the person he thought posted the article he found. His argument is that someone else plagiarized it which…means what? That it was alright for him to plagiarize the plagiarizer?
Regardless, as my university instructs students, plagiarism does not have to be intentional to be plagiarism. Now that Gousgounis alleges that this was a mistake, all that remained to be done was to fix the error. Apparently, that is too much to expect. Gousgounis would actually prefer to retain documentary evidence of his plagiarism, and the “administrators” seem willing to play along and to allow their site to be used for such purposes.
Perhaps this wrongdoing will not be corrected by the person responsible for it, and may need to be submitted to another “democratic” OAC vote, as the appropriate means of deflecting personal (ir)responsibility and sheltering one’s misdeeds behind the uninformed opinions of unaffected parties.
Ironically, Gousgounis himself wrote in the past on the OAC, in a thread that was appropriately titled “Can anthropologists cheat?”: “Maybe we have to consider the plagiarism or the copy-paste process of other texts used as original texts for a study or research with not even comments , citations or aknowledgments [sic].” Yes, please consider it, at your leisure.
Keith Hart’s maladministration can only offer the following bizarre evasion that seemingly pardons the plagiarism — too complicated it is, and besides plagiarism is just a “scare” and who could possibly know every blog post (even the one you plagiarize):
I guess it is excusable not to know every blog post on this subject. The issue of copying in the age of the internet is a matter of some dispute and I have previously questioned the premises of the current plagiarism scare in academia. This inexplicable omission, especially given the identity of the quote’s original author (but it would apply to anyone), brings our public fora into disrepute and should therefore be held accountable. In view of the vexed question of regulation here at the OAC, it would be hard to imagine a more tangled knot of issues.
Yes, ethics is just the shit that gets in anthropology’s way.
Donald S.
27 September 2009
Serious question: are they retarded? I hate to ask that about professional colleagues but it is now a very appropriate question. That kind of contempt for ethics would get me fired at my university or at the very least severely disciplined. I was hoping all the OAC muck would be dirty water under the bridge by now. Instead some of their people seem really hell bent on confirming the worst of what I thought, which was even worse than what you wrote. They indict themselves and invite scorn. What a big fat loss for cooperative | open | public anthropology, it’s a big embarrassment.
(BTW you promised a series on ‘decolonizing anthropology’; is that still in the works?)
Stacie
27 September 2009
Not much else a person can say here. It’s plagiarism, plain and simple.
Here’s an article with some interesting suggestions:
Problogger: What to do When Someone Steals Your Blog’s Content – Blog Plagiarism
Maximilian Forte
27 September 2009
That now appears to be a valid question, and thanks for posting again Donald.
Among the last comments were one that, in effect, said “oops” when one writes a lot one can slip up (really? that one will surprise most academics, let alone bloggers), and another that called for hammering out principles. Gee, I don’t know, this is a “toughie”: take someone’s work, delete where it came from, delete the author’s name, post as your own…hmm, let me see now, what could the problem be there? Yeah that’s really hard, we might need more than just another vote, maybe the intercession of all the saints is required too.
I recall one Michael Fischer posting some ridiculously triumphalist blather at the end of the last dispute, about how the OAC was taking “the high road,” and “we crossed the line in the summer of 2009.” Did they ever. Had I realized what it could have meant, I would have appreciated the threat. If there is any coordinated attack here, they are not the targets of it.
Right now their high road is paved in excrement. Most of those who joined to build something exciting and new have either left or gone totally silent. Again, you ask a good question.
Maximilian Forte
27 September 2009
We posted at nearly the exact same time Stacie. Thanks for that link. There is one thing I can do immediately, and that is to contact NING itself, which I will do.
Update: done.
ryan
27 September 2009
amazing. i love the non-answer about actually doing something about this.
ryan
27 September 2009
wait a sec. wasn’t there some earlier disagreement about sharing copyrighted material there a while back???
Maximilian Forte
27 September 2009
There was, and I was one of the advocates for using the OAC as an open access repository. What none of us advocated though was to take published materials, remove the source, and print our names in place of those of the original authors. In this instance we have both a copyright infringement (and in terms of this site, a violation of its CC license), and a case of plagiarism.
Maximilian Forte
27 September 2009
It’s alright, because I have filed a DMCA notice with NING, since their network is in violation of NING’s Terms of Service. It will be between Gousgounis, Hart, and NING now.
ryan
27 September 2009
well, the damn site has irritated me enough to go BACK there and start making more noise from the inside. hopefully it does not irritate you, but what bothers me is that there is this whole mass of members there who have no idea about any of this. so, that’s my own special issue with the OAC. i can’t believe that these are the same people who teach and drill students about proper citation, ethics, and so on. the irony is insane.
Maximilian Forte
27 September 2009
Thanks for taking this interest Ryan. Throughout the many episodes this site has been through from its inception, almost without exception younger anthropologists have been the ones to show the greatest backbone, and the greatest concern for issues of justice and fairness. That is really encouraging, and I should try to remember that fact.
ryan
28 September 2009
the irony is that hart responded by telling me that he is shocked that anyone would want to start recreating the “authoritarian” system in universities. i find that sentiment incredibly ironic, considering the fact that proper attribution is pretty standard through academia. i mentioned universities for that fact, but hart took it to mean that i am advocating for strict top-down measures. anything but. meanwhile, nobody even knows about the incident and nikos has done nothing to change it.
i also linked to an article about the informal ethics of blogging communities. amazing that this group of 1,900 anthro people cannot adhere to some similar ethic. to be fair though, most people have no idea what is happening.
one thing that is perplexing is how the admins keep arguing that the OAC is some kind of wide-open and free network, but then they keep getting involved in all of these discussions and finding a way to make them more opaque. it’s amazing. hart responded to this with all as if it’s a case about access, when it’s about attribution. and then the process gets dragged on as some kind of amiable solution is sought. committees and policy chat rooms will be formed, etc. meanwhile, nothing happens. the OAC is an experiment in how quickly ideas can spiral into useless debate and non-action.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
I can see that Keith Hart is very seriously muddled by batches of theory that he has slapped together in a manner that severely obfuscates very simple issues. He seems to think — now pretending to be the radical — that intellectual honesty, attribution, and respect are principles of the capitalist publishing industry. I don’t think that either Walter Benjamin or Karl Marx wanted to see their work copied and produced under someone else’s name, as if they had no hand in it.
For even a pretend Marxist like Hart, one would think that respecting the value produced by the labourer would be sacrosanct. Instead what he writes here
http://openanthcoop.ning.com/forum/topics/what-are-the-rules-about
is probably the worst butchery of the meanings of all the theories, movements, and concepts to which he liberally but carelessly refers, and sometimes he refers to the theories by the name of their authors…interesting that he did that, since he claims not to believe in it. Once such persons suffer the consequences of their own logic, applied back at them, one will see them bawl.
Hart the faux Marxist theorist now argues in favour of alienating labour and of free expropriation. He discredits himself by leaps and bounds.
It’s easy to be generous with someone else’s production: it’s no loss to you, only gain. Apparently the work I do here is simply to provide content for the OAC, so that not wishing to be in that network myself to add volume to it, does not count. I am in it no matter what, and the OAC intends to abuse its perceived relationship with me.
That OAC will end up being the most damaging, sullying, detrimental expression of anthropology online, reinforcing the fears of many that if they blog their research or engage in open access publishing that it will be all stolen. The irony is that the thief may be credited by others with the ideas or information, while the original author is erased. Hart forgets key features of modern capitalism: such as scamming, rip offs, and con jobs. He forgets them, because he supports them and does not want to attract negative attention.
Once again, if it was meant to be a deliberate heist, I don’t see how Hart & Co. could have done any better. These people must learn the value of something else: to go fuck themselves.
At any rate, Hart’s theoretical butchery places him and his network at odds with NING’s Terms of Service, and if he persists and even defends the practice of plagiarism and copyright violation, as he now clearly does, it will lead to his crappy network being shut down.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
Clearly, the OAC’s “no affiliation” statement is little more than BS (no surprise there), and Hart would like to see an escalation of the conflict online, far from resolving it.
Let those who think they see shameless smears and distortions pretend that Hart does not say what he says.
Donald S.
28 September 2009
Max, I’m sorry, but what do you mean ‘if it was meant to be a deliberate heist’? It is most certainly meant to be deliberate! Otherwise they would have fixed it by now and not wasted time dissembling. I am also sorry for referring to these characters as ‘professional colleagues,’ when they are neither. One more apology – I didn’t mean to push you on the next series of articles – I now think you should leave this post up right at the top all week long until everyone who can or might see this, will.
Totally disgusted with them. I do mean them – this reflects on ALL of their administrators, including their young PhD candidates who now distinguish themselves publicly and internationally for supporting plagiarism, intellectual dishonesty and research misconduct. Weren’t we all told that Churchill got fired from a full professorship for this?
Donald S.
28 September 2009
One more thing – remember the guys who wrote to you last time saying this whole boundary issue was bogus, it was not like they stole any of your work? Think again.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
Thanks again very much Donald.
Yes, I do remember well. In fact it was a certain “Sean MI” writing from the University of Western Australia (who had never written here before the last dispute, and displayed a complete lack of knowledge of what this site is about, which only helped him to heap further assumptions and then claim to be offended when corrected).
His comment is here:
http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/there-can-be-only-one/#comment-6735
He wrote:
The answer is now “yes.” I would like to see him return and eat his words, and perhaps explain how someone who claims such sensitivity for the issues could have misread them so badly. He will not, of course, because he like many others is simply a hit-and-run commentator.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
No, you know what Donald? I will go one better than your suggestion:
This is going to be the very last post to ever appear on this blog, unless the matter is resolved, period.
I do not work for the OAC. I made it very clear in the last dispute about four weeks back that the problem I saw was in creating an illusion that the two projects shared some affinity and were linked in some way, beginning with the confusion caused by the ostensibly similar names but not ending there by any means. Now we see an attempt at a forced merger, what I think capitalists call a “hostile takeover”, where apparently any of my work can be lifted and folded into the OAC without so much as a single note crediting this site. That means that more than just symbolism, and statements of affinity, the actual content of the two sites makes them appear to be one site more and more.
As for the spurious and perverse misinterpretations of “creative commons” some people really need to take the time to familiarize themselves with what that actually means, and start right here by examining the very same creative commons license that governs this site’s content: with attribution, no derivatives. That is Creative Commons.
Creative commons is not where there is one creator, and then a bunch of users who appropriate without attribution. Tell the CC people this is what you believe they are about if you don’t believe me. By the perverse misinterpretations like those upheld by Hart and his fellow admins, gang banging a woman would be an expression of the highest ideals of the creative commons.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
Given Keith Hart’s spurious allegations that I may be in his repulsive network under another name, let me make this absolutely clear: I totally deny that I am there under any other name or identity whatsoever.
I don’t even need to be. I can clearly see what they write, and respond to what they write where I am happiest writing. Anyone who knows me, knows by now that as a matter of policy I *never* provide free content in the form of commentary or anything to any site to which I am opposed, not under my name or any other name (and one should also know that I am very happy to write under my own name).
Keith Hart appears to have lost his marbles.
Enrique Betancourt
28 September 2009
This causes me great pity. Max have you considered the possibility that the reason Hart makes such an effort to defend plagiarism is that maybe some of his own published work is plagiarized from others?
Enrique Betancourt
28 September 2009
You were correct again when writing, “Perhaps this wrongdoing will not be corrected by the person responsible for it, and may need to be submitted to another “democratic” OAC vote, as the appropriate means of deflecting personal (ir)responsibility and sheltering one’s misdeeds behind the uninformed opinions of unaffected parties.” That is almost precisely what the incompetent “maladministration” is offering. You see they cannot trust their eyes to see that someone has pretended to be the author of something they did not write, copied without permission or a link to this blog. To answer Donald: yes, they are retarded or just very dumb.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
Thank you very much Enrique, I always appreciate your support on these issues. Not a problem anyway, they will reap what they sow and they have already lost tremendous face.
You might be interested in knowing that the original culprit, Nikos Gousgounis, has chosen to resort to lying. He wrote:
So he’s saying I agreed to the plagiarism, and more than that, I am grateful for it because otherwise if my name had been in place as the author of the post, I would not have the praise of lurid types. Can you believe this?
I wrote to him after:
More importantly, see the whole thread, where I never once told him it was OK, and demanded more than once that he make the necessary changes:
http://opensourcesocio.ning.com/profiles/comment/thread?screenName=20r4dtnk6s1o2
Moreover, he confesses that it is plagiarism in his bizarre quote above: he got the material from elsewhere (doesn’t matter where, from whom) and then just posted it as if it were his own. What is amazing is that he refuses to make the simplest correction, so that the intention really is deliberate hijacking as Donald suggested. The admins take no action, Hart even defends it, so they make themselves into accomplices.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
Apparently this is what Nikos understands to be permission and approval, and note how far he has gone to avoid the deliberate sarcasm and to remove the so-called permission out of context:
Marc Tyrrell
28 September 2009
Max,
I’ve been following this somewhat and, to put it mildly, it disgusts me. I read Keith’s discussion on plagiarism that you linked to and, if I was being charitable, I would say that it reminds me a a faux attempt by an 2nd year student at writing like a Trotskyite. I’m glad you contacted NING. I would urge you to also consider a civil law suit.
Whatever you do, however, don’t stop writing here – it would make all of our lives drabber.
Frenchguy
28 September 2009
Hi Max,
In the end, the thing seems to have been deleted. No surprise here.
I wanted to share a few thoughts at the end of the day.
1) It was not very hard to perceive that Nikos had been dishonest, while playing the role of an innocent. After he posted the extract from your blog, a member called Florian asked about a reference quoted in the text :
************
Florian asked : – “I couldn’t find the link to Gustavo’s text. Can you post it again? Or send it to me by email?”
Nikos answered : – “The text of Gustavo that I posted is from the journal Critique of Anthropology (Vol. 26, No. 4, 363-386) that I found in the net from a colleague. I don’t know the link. The other rext of him ( Ribeiro 2004) to which he refers I never read it.”
************
And he somewhere else pretended that he received the text from “google alerts”. Strange name for a colleague. Nothing surpising here either.
2) Nonetheless, Hart only found that “disturbing”, and not “untolerable”, as he once called my criticism of his management. And he condemned me strongly for criticizing “old Nikos” – I guess he consider him a comrade – for what he did.
3) Each time I tried to show that Hart’s reasoning was dubious at least, he did not try to think about it, but only resorted to ad hominem attacks. There is a repeating pattern : a few weeks ago he attacked me on anonymity after he got in trouble with questions of ethics. Today, when he had to face the fact that his speech consisted of pose and associanist thought rather than rational arguments, he followed the wonderful precedent set by Nikos, and implied that I might be yourself. On the one hand, I was flattered (is my english really that exempt of obvious faults ?, I doubt it). But of course it was also very annoying.
Well, seriously, what a freak family, humiliating themselves in public. Thank you guys over there for the spectacle.
I hope their members won’t have to bear responsibity for their wrongdoings once more.
I hope your flu is finally over and I endorse completely Marc Tyrrell last sentence.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
NING has deleted the page in question.
From the NING team’s email message to me, received today at 3:42pm:
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
Apparently they refused to make the necessary correction, and NING stepped in and deleted the entire article and discussion. Nikos never got the chance to self-correct — had a whole 8 days to do so, repeatedly prodded — and so he cements his reputation as a plagiarist.
Hart in the meantime confuses respect and intellectual honesty with “privatization” as if their material was being confiscated, and their labour value converted into capital from which they are alienated. This is from a supposed Marxist.
Many thanks to you as well for your constant support, I am both honoured and blessed.
Glad to finally move on, I hope they bugger off for good and respect boundaries for a change.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
I am very touched and flattered Marc, my many thanks to you for speaking up about this, when most others were perhaps looking on in silent amazement.
Frenchguy
28 September 2009
I guess now Hart is gonna complain and try to play the victim of the “privatization” of the “commons”.
While he sang a very different song when the subject of online repository was discussed at the beginning of the whole OAC thing.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
Let him play the victim. If there is a next time, then next time I will only inform NING. They won’t be given such a generous chance to self-correct, and it is not a matter for them to discuss and debate. It’s NING policy, and they say they agree to it. We may see what NING’s Repeat Infringer Policy looks like then. NING is especially concerned about the wholesale copying/uploading of content to which network members have no copyright.
ryan
28 September 2009
A nice read from ning-landia:
“Additionally, if you are a Network Creator, you agree to: promptly (and in any event in no more than 24 hours) address (including removing or disabling access to the allegedly infringing content for valid DMCA take down notices) any copyright owner’s written notice (including any notices forwarded to you by Ning) that specified Content or Network Code posted on Your Social Network infringes that third-party’s rights (including copyrights), provided that the notice substantially complies with the requirements in the DMCA.”
Link:
http://about.ning.com/tos.php#17
Stacie
28 September 2009
I’m glad to hear NING provides such a valuable service to the internet community.
I wish all anthropologists would lay out their opinions, morals, and, well, basic intelligence levels (or lack thereof) as frankly as Profs. Keith Hart and Kathleen Lowrey. It would make it much easier to decide which grad schools NOT to apply to and who NOT to affiliate with in future work/research. Not like they care, but I do.
Unfortunately, I do think they’ve done damage to the phrase “open anthropology.”
On the bright side, the entertainment value of this comment thread is priceless. Made my day.
Trinbagonian Kaiso Posse (M, J, B and C)
28 September 2009
Max, Couldn’t resist. We had to make a kaiso about this one! We’ll be bottle and spoonin’ dis one fuh days to come!
Nikos, The UnGreek: Parados to Exodus
When we were little fellas going daily to our schools
The teachers there would teach us all about the many rules
One of these rules was ominous, about which they’d often speak
“Children do be wary of gifts coming from a Greek.”
Because those Greeks used to drag ’round this big, old wooden horse
And if that thing cross your doorstep, well brother, that’s your loss!
But Nikos was the exception that’s said to prove the rule
He wasn’t bringing any gifts. He didn’t attend our school.
Chorus:
Nikos is the Greek who doh bring nobody nuttin’
He only comin’ to take, an’ is plenty style he cuttin’
In his Captain hat, on his pirate ship
He busy taking people thing and he wouldn’t leave a tip.
Even when the people shouted, “But Nikos, you’re a thief!!”
His fist was in the cookie jar but he wouldn’t turn a leaf
He was lookin’ at you brass face, straight so in your eye
He was saying he didn’t know it was yours and YOU had to prove his lie
Your big cookie was in his hand but he said it seemed generic
He was just about to say the world was square and not at all that spheric
Every day our jaws were dropping lower in disbelief
Now Nikos knows the difference between giving and taking grief.
Chorus:
Nikos is the Greek who doh bring nobody nuttin’
He only comin’ to take, an’ is plenty style he cuttin’
In his Captain hat, on his pirate ship
He busy taking people thing and he wouldn’t leave a tip.
Look, Dryden tell us, “Trust not their presents, nor admit the horse.”
But he obviously never meet this Nikos, the cookie lifting boss
Cutting out and pasting without any attribution
Then refusing to amend without fear of retribution
Greekness in reverse, what was this world coming to?
Greeks bearing gifts to themselves? Well this was something new.
Maximilian, the Trojan warned, “Proceed at your own risk!”
Stolen cookies can seriously damage an academic disk.
Chorus:
Nikos is the Greek who doh bring nobody nuttin’
He only comin’ to take, an’ is plenty style he cuttin’
In his Captain hat, on his pirate ship
He busy taking people thing and he wouldn’t leave a tip.
All the hemming and the hawing, it was really quite transparent
The moral confuffulation was embarrassingly apparent
To the disrespect of others, some were easily inured
But would they’ve been so blasé if they were the ones injured?
The keeper of this tangled web, the one who’s at its Hart
All eyes were fixed upon him but he chose to stand apart
Underestimating his audience, every time he deigned to speak
He was confusing us with Nikos, since it sounded all like Greek.
Chorus:
Nikos is the Greek who doh bring nobody nuttin’
He only comin’ to take, an’ is plenty style he cuttin’
In his Captain hat, on his pirate ship
He busy taking people thing and he wouldn’t leave a tip!
Nikos never recanted nor admitted all his wrongs
NING stepped in and threw him in the bin where he belongs
All the Trojan wanted rightly was due credit for his work
His vigilance was tireless, as they danced behind their murk
Kaiso is to society what the chorus is to drama
To elucidate the action and prepare you for the karma…
Pirates are pariahs and must walk the plank alone
So just give Jack his jacket and with Rover, leave that bone!!
Chorus:
Nikos is the Greek who doh bring nobody nuttin’
He only comin’ to take, an’ is plenty style he cuttin’
In his Captain hat, on his pirate ship
He busy taking people thing and he wouldn’t leave a tip!
Note: “who doh bring nobody nuttin.” Double negatives do not result in a positive in the Trinbagonian dialect They just reinforce a negative meaning. He brings NOTHING.
Elbowed Prostate Check
28 September 2009
Just wait until Max finds out that his posts are being adapted and plagiarized for a new generation of military counterinsurgency field manuals.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
Hahaha! What would those manuals be for, for ensuring that America loses each of its next wars? Sorry, apparently those are the manuals they are currently using, I forgot.
Funny that you should say this, considering that one of the charges against Petraeus’ COIN Manual was that it plagiarized the works of social scientists. So maybe you are right.
Anyway, it would be great if the next generation of COIN follows my advice, and keeps U.S. forces at home to help address desperate domestic problems.
Update: Wait a second. Aren’t you the same “Qwerty Bob” who posted about Eric Price being David Price’s son? You know you have a little credibility problem with your info, right? Anyway, I fell for it the first time. Thanks.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
This means that Hart refused, which also means he steadfastly defended the plagiarism, without any ambiguity now. Quite the scholar.
To my good fortune, this is one case where plagiarism and copyright merged or overlapped. My concern was only plagiarism. However, the work was plagiarized to the extent that it also violates copyright, and this is where NING gets interested.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
Thanks Stacie, LOL!
In all seriousness though, I did have one prospective graduate student, someone who posted here regularly, who said he dropped all plans for a MA in anthro after having been convinced it was a right decision from his time spent in the OAC itself. I don’t think that the OAC all by itself changed his mind, but rather that it triggered some really serious misgivings. I will miss him; he is extremely bright, and I miss his raunchy commentary here.
Maximilian Forte
28 September 2009
This is quite unbelievable! Exquisite. A calypso written to memorialize the event? It should be its own post! I am totally overwhelmed by this, it really cheers me up and reminds me that this can still be a very lively, creative, wonderful site visited by great people.
I don’t know how to thank you.
NIKOS GOUSGOUNIS
29 September 2009
Max , I did not know so far that it is so easy to click EDIT on that discussion and cite your name as the original author of the text and 7 questions. Nobody had indicated me this way , but now that you told me how to do, of course i will click this EDIT button and change it.
p.s. what you say about me rejected by wikipedia etc I ASSURE YOU THAT AN IDIOTIC STUDENT WANTED TO MAKE A PAGE FOR ME THERE WITHOUT ASKING ME AND OF COURSE IT DID NOT WORK, otherwise I have not any special reason to be ..immortalised by writing my CV there.
NIKOS GOUSGOUNIS
29 September 2009
Max . I just went to click that EDIT button you told me in the discussion WORLD ANTHROPOLOGY and to cite your name as the author of the initial discussion text BUT THE WHOLE DISCUSSION WAS REMOVED TODAY BY NING and this is a pity because your information to me came exactly when they decided to remove this special discussion. I have not ANY PROBLEM TO DECLARE THAT YOU ARE THE AUTHOR OF THIS TEXT EVEN IN YOUR SITE BUT AS I DECLARED ALSO BEFORE I DID NOT KNOW IT AS THAT OLD TEXT PUBLISHED IN NOV 08 SINCE IT CAME TO ME IN THE BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER 09 ANONYMOUSLY BY THE GOOGLE ALERTS.
SINCERELY
NIKOS GOUSGOUNIS
NIKOS GOUSGOUNIS
29 September 2009
About the poem composed for my …robbery , that I just saw , what to comment ? This turned to be a poetry site ? Me the ..pirate ? Thanks for your sensitivity. Anyway I am happy that some people here are getting joy and create funny verses on my name. Life seems to be too gloomy with no smiles. Enjoy….
Maximilian Forte
29 September 2009
Nikos, what I don’t want to do is to continue something that has been brought to a conclusion, or to offer you anything that might sound like a form of reassurance, only to later read you saying that I approved of your actions. For days I wrote to you without receiving a response. At least I am not ignoring you in return.
All I will say about this now is that you seem to be aware that what you did was wrong and that it needed correction. In that case, please explain it to Keith Hart. He seems to be having a lot of difficulty understanding that, having painted himself into a tight theoretical corner.
Since he seems to dream of a “world state” and world society that erases all grounds for individuality, particularity, and difference, he should be told that some will fight back against a cosmopolitanism that reveals itself to be another face of liberal imperialism. Pardon my language, but dead old Kant won’t help you when you go fucking with the wrong people.
That calypso was great, like some Trinidadian classics, I can even hear the music in the words.
ryan
29 September 2009
uh…nikos has re-posted your excerpt once again, this time with a long preamble in all caps full of a series of excuses and explanations. he does mention your name at the top, but what he is trying to achieve i have no idea. he still has no idea how to attribute sources clearly let alone use hyperlinks:
http://openanthcoop.ning.com/forum/topics/world-anthropology-number-2
Maximilian Forte
29 September 2009
Thank you Ryan. Apparently Nikos is a mighty big fool.
Maximilian Forte
29 September 2009
Incidentally, Keith Hart is mistaken when he writes that a NING network creator is required to take down infringing material “whether the claimant has proved they hold the copyright or not.” Anyone can fill out a DCMA complaint form, NING has one, and one question asks “Identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed,” and another question asks, “Describe how your copyright has been infringed.” NING then investigates this, emails those concerned, and then decides whether to take action.
The DCMA outline is here:
http://about.ning.com/dmca-notice.php
Maximilian Forte
29 September 2009
Just to be clear, my second notification to NING is not about plagiarism. Yes Nikos still fails to put a link back to the source, and it is hard to tell whether it is due to incompetence, a lingering desire not to acknowledge, or whatever — who cares. However, the copyright issue remains, especially in NING’s eyes.
At this point, I simply do not give permission for any of my material to ever be copied over into the OAC, whether with attribution and a link back, or not. That is entirely my right, and I am exercising it. I do not agree to supply material to abusive sites to which I remain opposed. It’s just that simple.
But apparently too complex for Nikos, who cannot understand the value of leaving people alone and moving on. He reposted the same material with a certain air of arrogant triumphalism (which he can least afford), not to mention a note of intentional mischief. See:
“Before you leave there is something I put as a discussion for everybody just a min ago that might be of some interest. Enjoy.”
http://openanthcoop.ning.com/xn/detail/3404290:Comment:29566
And in response to the rules set out by NING, and the DCMA, Nikos incomprehensibly responds:
“For this reason I started a new discussion by the title WORLD ANTHROPOLOGY number 2. Get a look and you will understand.”
http://openanthcoop.ning.com/xn/detail/3404290:Comment:29569
As I told Nikos above, I would not be providing him with any reassurances to soothe his self-bruised ego, and see my words twisted out context as a vindication of his dishonesty. Apparently he can proceed to lie again anyway:
“I apologised to Forte 4 days ago and he was convinced about the reasons of that post was not to claim his copyright.”
http://openanthcoop.ning.com/xn/detail/3404290:Comment:29578
(Um, apparently NOT Nikos, or are you reading impaired as well?)
Nikos adds,
“I think all this is turning around the same.”
http://openanthcoop.ning.com/xn/detail/3404290:Comment:29584
Right you are there Nikos. We can all have a look at what NING’s Repeat Infringer Policy looks like in action now.
Trinbagonian Kaiso Posse (M, J, B and C)
29 September 2009
Nikos, man, we hearing that you classed the kaiso at a low level of literacy and we crying all the way to the beach…LOL. Perhaps we should have asked you to give us some tips on how to plagiarise to sound more intelligent. “Who de cap fit, let dem wear it!”
Maximilian Forte
29 September 2009
His cap is crooked. No really.
When some people read “Open Anthropology” what they instead read is: OPEN SESAME! I wonder if Nikos knows that story.
I really wish I could join you guys, free of this lousy cold and rainy weather, and this rotten flu. I may have had Dengue in Trinidad, but it was a happy Dengue!