新未名空间

wh. 写了： 2024年 1月 2日 16:14 是，我读研时我们一个外教也说我们的引用都不严格，谆谆教导我们要是在美国会被告剽窃的，即使一两个词也不要怕麻烦，一定要用引号，要写source。还说这和中文的典故不同，古诗文引用典故讲究不着一字，尽得风流；但学术论文切忌风流 我也印象很深，很汗颜。

不过抄袭还是有程度和质量区别的。你看她被爆的抄袭的字句，基本是我写一句叩谢saysay1，她抄一句拜谢vladputin。或者我写切一片蛋糕，她抄切一块蛋糕。不影响主题，但确实是抄了。哈佛第一次调查报告说是“...found multiple instances of improper citation, though the review concluded the errors did not amount to research misconduct."(https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023 ... extension/)

Crimson校报上还有个更详细地对比抄袭文字的新闻，拉到当中看红蓝highlight的对比：
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023 ... sertation/
被抄的人和哈佛调查委员会口径一致，要么觉得不算剽窃：
“Bobo, King, and Gilliam all said they did not feel Gay plagiarized their work.”
要么觉得技术上是剽窃，但无足轻重：
”Voss ... said the work was “technically plagiarism,” but described it as “minor-to-inconsequential.”

而主控她的人说话真是难听，也毫不讳言挑事的动机：
"In a post on X Sunday night, right-wing activist Christopher F. Rufo said he and journalist Christopher Brunet intentionally released the story amid calls for Gay’s ouster as Harvard’s governing boards met to discuss the controversy surrounding her testimony.

“@RealChrisBrunet and I sat on the Claudine Gay plagiarism materials for the past week, waiting for the precise moment of maximum impact,” Rufo wrote. “The Harvard board is meeting tonight and there are rumors that the plagiarism scandal could be the final nail in Gay's coffin.”"

他们也确实有犹太大财主支持：
"The claim was amplified by Bill A. Ackman ’88, a hedge fund CEO who has been a vocal critic of Gay and has called for her resignation."

Bill Ackman是Ashkenazi Jewish descent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ackman)，给哈佛捐款数千万：
https://newrepublic.com/article/177598/ ... ond-market
"Ackman, age 57, is worth a reported $3.9 billion, and he's given Harvard tens of millions over the years, including $25 million in 2014. He has nearly one million followers on X."

校长确有把柄，再加上政治因素火上浇油，就把事情搞大了。她捍卫自己的scholarly rigor，大概因为如果道歉，就没法在学术圈里混了？

RJZN 写了： 2024年 1月 2日 20:47 https://freebeacon.com/campus/harvard-p ... lagiarism/

Though Harvard's governing board, the Harvard Corporation, said in mid-December that it had reviewed Gay’s published oeuvre and found several cases of "inadequate citation," it did not identify any of the examples described in the new complaint, which was submitted to the school’s research integrity officer, Stacey Springs, and obtained by the Free Beacon.

The discrepancy raises troubling questions not just about the scope of Gay’s plagiarism, which appears to afflict half of her published works, but also the thoroughness and seriousness of the Corporation’s probe, which the board described as "an independent review by distinguished political scientists."

The review was completed in just a few weeks—far less time than the 6 to 12 months typical of other plagiarism investigations—and the Corporation has refused to disclose the names of the academics who conducted it. A Harvard spokesman, Jonathan Swain, did not respond to a request for comment about whether the school has reviewed all of Gay’s work, and, if so, how it missed the examples unearthed on Monday.

"The board’s review of Gay’s work was too brief to inspire confidence," the complaint reads. "So we now know for certain that the board’s investigation was a sham."