I've provided specific examples of what is considered easily checked.

No, you haven't. You've provided specific examples of what Concordia College considers plagiarism, which is hardly the same thing as what the Chicago Manual of Style considers "easily checked." The Chicago thing is so on point here that I wouldn't be surprised if Schoenfield was using it to decide whether it needed attribution. You cooked your own goose with your very first cite.

Look, your writing is so surpassingly awful that it's clear no one would ever let you near any sort of respectable publication. I have spent many years working for them, however, and so has David Schoenfield. And he's right.

You're citing definitions of plagiarism.


To which I originally provided my opinion of said definition to SJ and was assailed for it.

You have even said it doesn't pass the smell test.

I am discussing the ethical ramifications of information sharing.


It sure seems that you are talking about plagiarism when you say it doesn't pass the smell test of plagiarism. It is plagiarism.

And ok, lets talk about the ethical ramifications. In less than a week,

(1) a senior and respected writer at ESPN copied the text of another article verbatim without attribution

(2) a senior editor admits that he has taken information from another place, and because he paraphrased it, he doesn't have to.

Isn't this line of escalation exactly what got Barnicle fired.

Share the information all you want. SJ cannot prevent Schoenfeld from using it. How hard would it have been for him to attribute it. So the better question is why didn't he attribute it. If Schnassy, Griffin, or LaBatard came up with the idea, would he have cited it. Does it matter that it came from bprime. Does it matter that he re-did the math.

The issue is not that he took one little fact because SJ isn't pressing it. The issue has become that he doesn't think he needs to cite it.

I'm just concerned that you don't seem willing to recognize that ethical implications can vary based on context.


No, punishment and effects vary on context. Lying to America about your involvement in Watergate is pretty serious and has a serious punishment. Lying to your wife about her new shoes is saving somebody's feelings. But lying with the intent to deceive is still lying.

Does the fact that Schoenfeld picked on somebody who is relatively defenseless make the context better. You think it would be worse if he took from the Herald.

He didn't appropriate a whole article, so that diminishes it some, but he certainly appropriated a whole post. An end to end form of expression.

But like I said, if all you're trying to say is that the ethics of the situation are the same in all contexts only in the sense that it's still an ethical concern even if the degree of that concern is significantly different, then we have nothing to disagree about.

I'm not sure, when SJ said he didn't care, I thought no harm no foul. When Schoenfeld came out here and admitted he appropriated and then said he didn't have to attribute, it suddenly became a much bigger deal.

I am no curious as to how often this occurs.

You don't perceive the failure to adhere to professional norms a problem in and of itself?

Sure, it's a problem.

But the issues we're discussing (those on the very weak end of the plagiarism spectrum) are an entirely different problem from people stealing entire articles, intentionally lifting paragraphs, stealing others work.

The first is laziness, or a desire to keep articles uncluttered from the countless citations they would have to include in order to assure absolute ethical purity. The other is much worse.

They fall into the same category of violation, but they are not the same ethical problem.

<style considers "easily checked." </i>

Ok, then show me what the Chicago Manual of Style says then Bootsy. I think it says pretty plainly "not generally known or easily checked." No get out of jail card for trying to vaguely satisfy one half of the standard. And I've shown you multiple interpretations from multiple respected authorities. You've provided nothing except your opinion. Your opinion is not supportable under a textual analysis, is not supportable under an ethical analysis, and certainly has not been backed up by any authority. Come out here with more than your opinion and your insults.

It is almost as if you are fighting over jaywalking, or spitting on the sidewalk. Both are technically criminal acts, in the sense that they violate the law. Both are considered by the "common man" to be fairly innocuous offenses.


No, its pissing on the sign that tells you not to spit on the street. At least that is what it became after Schoenfeld came out here and said "I took it, and I don't have to cite it."

If ESPN regularly appropriates the ideas of others without acknowledging the source, and is as callous as BL characterizes them, then one day, they're going to cross over the line in a way that isn't so innocuous, and then they're going to have a pretty serious problem.


You mean like lifting the quote and expression of that quote from another journalist without attribution. I mean fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice. At what point are you going to look to see if they are doing this type of thing. I think when a senior editor comes out here and tells you they are doing this type of thing, its time to start looking.

My personal opinion on the matter is that certain aspects of plagiarism policy, particularly in the world of academics, are a bit heavy-handed and should be somewhat relaxed. When the policy extends to the point where utilizing the same style of formatting in a paper as one with an entirely different topic is considered to be plagiarism*, I think the policy over-reaches. My law school's policy specifically cautions against this.


Well that may be true, but its a seperate issue. I'm sure that I have plagiarised in a strict liability sense in the past, but there was no intent. Here you have the editor saying I did it, and I don't have to give you any credit whatsoever.

The first is laziness, or a desire to keep articles uncluttered from the countless citations they would have to include in order to assure absolute ethical purity. The other is much worse.


Endless citations... What are you talking about. Its simple, instead of "According to my editor" he types "According to sj" or "According to baseball primer" How endless is that. He11, the first one saves characters. Again, its not Simmons fault. You want to worry about clutter, get rid of "ESPN's Peter Gammons reports ..."

No, punishment and effects vary on context. Lying to America about your involvement in Watergate is pretty serious and has a serious punishment. Lying to your wife about her new shoes is saving somebody's feelings. But lying with the intent to deceive is still lying.

I'll try one last time.

Most of what you just posted, which was (presumably) in response to me has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

ESPN, not relevant. It is (or is not) technically plagiarism, not relevant.

I am saying (to use your example of lying) that lying to the Nazi who wants to know if you're seen a Jew is still lying, but it's ethically good. Saying that plagiarism is plagiarism or that lying is lying is a tautology. It's not helpful.

These instances of plagiarism aren't the same as lying to save the Jew in the basement, in that there's nothing positive gained by it (except for reading that is uncluttered by obsessive citations). However, the problem of people who live on the weak end of the plagiarism spectrum is pretty far down on my list of things that need to be worried about.

You keep talking about the "smell test." I never said anything about that. I even stated (fairly clearly, I thought) that I was not interested in contesting whether this particular issue was plagiarism. It seems like it is, as far as I can tell. Just a very watered down version.

Can you just answer this question?
Is there an ethical difference between the following people?
Person A: steals a whole chapter from someone else
Person B: fails to credit the person who thought that HBP might be a way to measure tension in the Yankees/Red Sox games

If the answer is "yes," I will, once again, state that there's really not much for us to argue about.

I think it says pretty plainly "not generally known or easily checked." No get out of jail card for trying to vaguely satisfy one half of the standard.

I think the "or" means that if you've satisfied one of those two conditions, it's enough. Why do you interpret it differently, BL?

I think the "or" means that if you've satisfied one of those two conditions, it's enough. Why do you interpret it differently, BL?

Only needing to satisfy one of the two would be "not generally known or not easily checked".

The not clearly also refers to the "easily checked" as well, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Therefore, the "generally known or easily checked" is treated as a single unit in the test. Satisfying one is equivalent to satisfying both.

The not clearly also refers to...

The "not" clearly also refers to...

Hope that helps.

No, you haven't. You've provided specific examples of what Concordia College considers plagiarism, which is hardly the same thing as what the Chicago Manual of Style considers "easily checked."

I agree. You've provided other definitions of plagiarism -- they don't address the easily checked caveat at all. In fact, all of those definition contain caveats for information that is common knowledge, and it's clear that at least one standard finds easily checked information to be of common knowledge.

Furthermore, fans don't need the Lahman database to check that information -- that's only ONE of the many ways they could check that information. I think the fact that the information on a publicly available, easily accessible website satisfies that rule.

If any of those manuals or standards' definition of easily checked or common knowledge precludes the argument I've been making, present that definition and I'll stand corrected.

and it's clear that at least one standard finds easily checked information to be of common knowledge.

No it does not. Here's the full passage from the Chicago Manual:

"Ethics, copyright laws, and courtesy to readers require authors to identify the sources of direct quotations and of any facts or opinions not generally known or easily checked."

I don't see where you're getting that inference at all.

I think the fact that the information on a publicly available, easily accessible website satisfies that rule.

And thousands of books are easily accessible in your local library.

Endless citations... What are you talking about. Its simple, instead of "According to my editor" he types "According to sj" or "According to baseball primer" How endless is that. He11, the first one saves characters. Again, its not Simmons fault. You want to worry about clutter, get rid of "ESPN's Peter Gammons reports ..."

In the mid 1990's, the internet was proclaimed the "New Marketplace of Ideas" and many 'entities' (MicroSoft being the largest) shunned it like the plague. All of the sudden, it's the late 90's and "you're nothing if you're not on the internet." All the big boys make the jump...

Long story short; you don't even have to mention where an idea came from... Just hyperlink to it if citing is too cumbersome... After all, you expend numerous hours every week tweaking code to make sure you've your in compliance with your Marketing Partners agreements... right...?????

-----------
trevise :-) ...

Only needing to satisfy one of the two would be "not generally known or not easily checked".

It's true that your statement would be a more unequivocal way of saying it; it's also true that your statement would /have the same meaning/ as what was already said, because as you go on to point out,

</i> The "not" clearly also refers to the "easily checked" as well, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Therefore, the "generally known or easily checked" is treated as a single unit in the test. Satisfying one is equivalent to satisfying both. </i>

Which is what I'm trying to say. If satisfying one is equivalent to satisfying both, I'm not sure why BL isn't doing what /you/ are, namely s arguing that the information isn't easily checked, and is instead maintaining that you need to satisfy both conditions.

It's not at all clear to me that this information /isn't/ easily checked.

"... I'm not sure why BL isn't doing what /you/ are, namely arguing that the information isn't easily checked; instead, he's maintaining that you need to satisfy both conditions."

There we go, much clearer.

Just to make sure we're on the same page...

I'm saying that if the fact is either not public knowledge or not generally known, the author is supposed to cite.

Um, ignore 117. I didn't mean to submit.

instead, he's maintaining that you need to satisfy both conditions.

If the word "and" was used instead of "or", it would mean that authors must pass both conditions to avoid a cite. Placing the "or" means that if they fail one condition, they must cite.

think the "or" means that if you've satisfied one of those two conditions, it's enough. Why do you interpret it differently, BL?


Fair enough. It doesn't matter.

I think the fact that the information on a publicly available, easily accessible website satisfies that rule.

Its not on a publically available web site. Count the clicks on getting the information. Then if you really want to measure effort, count the number of operations to use the source material.

There is a reason why statistics are included in the other information. Moreover, the whole idea to use HBP in that time peroid was not Schoenfelds.

You've provided other definitions of plagiarism -- they don't address the easily checked caveat at all.

No, I have provided other authorities interpretation of the Chicago Manual of Style's rule regarding plagiarism. The defintion of plagiarism is distinct from all those things. Those authorities rule on whether specific acts are considered to be plagiarism on a regular basis. They make those determinations. They are far more illustrative than Bootsy's opinion, and far more illustrative than David Schoenfeld's opinion. More important, the latter is clearly a self-interested party on this issue and could not render an objective.

and it's clear that at least one standard finds easily checked information to be of common knowledge.


And they all provide examples of what is easily checked and what is not considered easily checked. In all cases, you are talking about simple dates of events. Rather than just argue it from your understanding, show me one authority that has had to make these decisions that says this type of act is not plagiarism.

I am saying (to use your example of lying) that lying to the Nazi who wants to know if you're seen a Jew is still lying, but it's ethically good.

And I said that lying to your wife about how she looks is not a problem either, so why use an even more extreme example.

Can you just answer this question?
Is there an ethical difference between the following people?
Person A: steals a whole chapter from someone else
Person B: fails to credit the person who thought that HBP might be a way to measure tension in the Yankees/Red Sox games


If I can change B to: "Steals an idea and statistical work from a person who showed that HBP is a measure of tension in Yankees/Red Sox game" then no, there is no ethical difference between the two. There is a legal difference in that the first has violated copyright. There is also a punishment difference. The first guy should be fired; the second should be reprimanded. But both have committed ethical violations.

But what you have done is a little dishonest. You have intentionally changed the wording of the events to try to gain emotion from connotation, and you have also left the intent ambiguous in the second instance.

And again to everybody who doesn't know the difference between definition, rule, and interpretation, I offer the challenge, show me an authority that says the specific act is ok. Show me an authority that says using a mere statistic is allowable. Show me something that shows "easily checked" is more than the date an event occurred. Show me something that says "generally known" is something more than a term of art in the industry.

Just telling me what you think it means is pure sophistry. When some of you get locked in, you can define a word in your mind into oblivian.

I think we're on the same page. Lemme run the flip side of that by you just to be absolutely certain: if a fact is either generally known OR easily checked, an author is not obliged to cite. If you'd agree with that, we're good.

I don't see where you're getting that inference at all.

Well, the sentence seems to consider "generally known" and "easily checked" equally sufficient to warrant a lack of attribution. That's where I'm getting that inference.

And thousands of books are easily accessible in your local library.

I didn't set the standard, I'm just applying it. If you disagree that it's easy to check the Red Sox vs. Yankees HBP totals, then I can respect that argument; I disagree.

D'oh. I should've refreshed the page before I posted in response to 117. Ignore 120. Also, ignore 121.

Actually, ignore all my posts.

I started drinking and now I'm not sure what I mean.

If the word "and" was used instead of "or", it would mean that authors must pass both conditions to avoid a cite. Placing the "or" means that if they fail one condition, they must cite.

Those are the same thing.

Must pass both to avoid a cite
Fail one = must cite

Same thing. In both instances, you must meet both conditions to avoid a cite.

Baldrick: However, the problem of people who live on the weak end of the plagiarism spectrum is pretty far down on my list of things that need to be worried about

I am not sure I completely understand. Are you saying people who don't get cited for work they do is not a big deal to you? I hope what you're saying is that it's not a big deal to you only if it's a minor detail, because I could understand that more but would still disagree with it. If I did some data compilation to see some trend, or if I went to some minor league games and did a relatively simple scouting report on a prospect, and then someone took it I'd be upset. Even if it's minor, it's the principal. I'll let you carry on the Jew debate with Backlasher, but I feel it's completely immaterial here for me, because the only reason he didn't cite is because he didn't want to. There was no underlying good reason.

Easily accessible is finding batting average's online or in a paper. Finding 2 teams HBP numbers for a certain set of years, where that is not already compiled anywhere to check, is not what I consider easily checked. Also, many people don't know about retrosheet, and many people don't consider combing through over 50 box scores and making a table, to be considered 'easily checked'.

Now, I disagree with Backlasher's points at times, but when I see him always having more attackers than supporters, even on random issues like this, it seems like people have made up their decision before they've heard the facts.

That would've been funnier if my post was 121 instead of 122. Not to say sardonic shouldn't be ignored, of course. =)

Long story short; you don't even have to mention where an idea came from... Just hyperlink to it if citing is too cumbersome

Yes, trevise. I wish I had thought of that. How hard would a hyperlink have been. I'm ready for Bootsy and Schoenfeld to talk about how its ok not to keep a record of all sources.

The Chicago thing is so on point here that I wouldn't be surprised if Schoenfield was using it to decide whether it needed attribution.

Bootsy, when you are smart enough to know the difference between "on point" and the actual binding statutory language, come back and talk to us, until then you can keep moving from publication to publication per your other post. I will not be the least bit curious as to why you have worked for "many" of them.

I was the one who said it doesn't pass the sniff test.

It doesn't. It's laughable.

I would suggest querying a half-dozen or so senior editors at media organizations of your choice about this, but I wouldn't want you to waste their time.

Your local TV newscasts at 6 make transgressions far worse than this every day, getting ideas from local newspapers or tip hot lines or the Internet, sometimes using lines verbatim, without attribution. Wire services like AP survive on doing this sort of thing -- member paper reports a story, and the AP can get the story in a manner of ways:

1. The member paper submits the story and it's attributed to that paper. (Most of the time.)
2. The AP rewrites it, crediting the paper. (If it feels like it.)
3. The AP does a little fact-checking on its own, makes a few calls and writes its own story without ever mentioning the original report.

I will say this: I think the author fails both parts.

Sorry to baudib and baldrick for mixing them up.

I will say this: I think the author fails both parts.

I agree at least wrt Schoenfeld. I don't think Simmons did anything wrong. And somebody did something wrong wrt to the Gammons column.

baudib: Just because plagiarism is rampant doesn't mean that it should be tolerated in this particular case.

How is Retrosheet not a publically available website? All you have to do is go to the team page of either the Red Sox or Yankees for the 2001-2004 seasons. Then, click on game log. Check the box scores for the games involving both teams, then add.

20 minutes, tops.

If there's a specific standard for easiness that that doesn't meet, then I'm wrong.

And I'm pretty sure that the passage is saying that you need only satisfy one condition to avoid a cite. It basically says, as I understand it:

"Facts and opinions not generally known or easily checked must be attributed."

I would suggest querying a half-dozen or so senior editors at media organizations of your choice about this, but I wouldn't want you to waste their time.


List the publications you think are worthwhile and I'll send the emails. How about a couple of Journalism professors too. List the schools. How about an ethics professor like Caprizzi or do you think he would be biased for my POV.

But both have committed ethical violations.

Okay, so we do disagree.

How about if I clarify that person B chose not to cite the person because they didn't think it was essential? They didn't say to themself: "Gee, I would really like to steal this idea and work."

Is the foreknowledge that the act was unethical the main issue for you?

It's just that no one who does what Person B did (in your version or mine) does so with the same intent as Person A. They just don't.

I guess I just don't understand you. You say that lying if it's not for bad reasons is okay? Is that right? It's okay to lie to your wife and it's okay to lie to the Nazi? Am I reading you correctly?

The reason why people don't cite extensively is that to meet an incredibly strict standard of plagiarism, to assure oneself of absolute ethical purity, you WOULD have to go to absurd lengths. Virtually every sentence would have to be cited.

Obviously no one wants to do that. So we set a limit on what needs to be cited. Some people might set that limit at a different place than you. That doesn't make them unethical, even if they might technically violate rules on plagiarism. They're just avoiding a negative the same as you try to avoid a negative by lying to your wife.

Their intent is not to do harm, just like your intent in your admitted violations was not to do harm. They're not doing anything they find to be wrong, and most people would agree with them. Just like jaywalking, it's not worth raising much of a fuss about.

Those people did not commit the same ethical violation as someone who deliberately steals work.

20 minutes, tops.


Find one example from any source that makes these decisions who gives a permitted use that would take more than 20 minutes of compilation time.

baudib: Just because plagiarism is rampant doesn't mean that it should be tolerated in this particular case.

Agreed. But this isn't plagiriasm. It's not even close.

In general, no one "owns" statistics, unless it is something that is extremely unusual, like perhaps the stuff Jayson Stark uses (and often cites sources for) or is something "not readily available" such as PAP or Win Shares or something.

It's not easy to count the number of citizens in the United States, but it is perfectly fine to refer to 280 million Americans without citing the U.S. Census Bureau. Stuff like sports trends stats almost never fall in this "should attribute" category -- how often do you hear stuff like "The Cowboys are XX-XX when Emmitt Smith rushes for 100 yards (I guess you don't hear it anymore, but you know what I mean)."

List the publications you think are worthwhile and I'll send the emails. How about a couple of Journalism professors too. List the schools. How about an ethics professor like Caprizzi or do you think he would be biased for my POV.

You can choose them, just make sure to cite the specifics.

BTW, no one mentioned that Godwin's Law was proven correct.

I am not sure I completely understand. Are you saying people who don't get cited for work they do is not a big deal to you? I hope what you're saying is that it's not a big deal to you only if it's a minor detail, because I could understand that more but would still disagree with it.

That is what I'm saying, the minor detail thing.

Moreover, I'm not saying that, if there is material harm, you shouldn't be compensated. You should.

I'm just saying that the ethical problem of failing to cite minor details does not deserve to be treated as the same ethical problem of most plagiarism.

I do tend to disagree with Backlasher a lot, sure. But, in this instance, I have spent the entire conversation trying to figure out if we even really have anything to disagree with.

The reason that happens is because he speaks in broad terms with a lot of vitriolic language. Speaking the way he does will consistently invite questions from people like me who want to determine his stance. Also, he (I think) has a very black and white view of morality. Something is, for him, either right or wrong. I often am the same way, but this has taught me to look for those areas in between which deserve attention. I think a large number of the arguments I have with him are over such details.

I think a lot of other people are the same way. This doesn't mean the piling-on effect doesn't exist, but apologism for Backlasher sometimes refuses to acknowledge that his posting style is a big part of it.

I mean, he is Backlahser after all. This is a persona designed to be provacative. To not pile on would almost be a refusal to engage the character.

Anyways, I'm done now, for serious. Enjoy the continuing discussion.

Those people did not commit the same ethical violation as someone who deliberately steals work.

Your point being...??? Schoenfield did indeed admit he saw SJ's "HBP" information here at Baseball Think Factory, and went to the trouble to double check its accuracy. At which point, he states he didn't feel an obligation to cite the "genesis" of the idea...! And this is not (deliberate) stealing HOW...?????

--------
trevise

I actually agree with Backlasher somewhat on most of his more controversial stances (steroids, anti-statheadism).

The issue isn't about ownership of the stat, its about how easy it is to get the stat and giving proper credit for doing any relevant research. 20 minutes of research doesn't seem "easy" to me. If anyone claims that it is easy, then I'd love to know the number of HBP ocurred for the Yankees and Red Sox in their series against each other from 77-80.

ESPN may have good reasons not to send their readers to this site anymore. It may be against their policy to link to a site that includes profanity and questionable content (no Joe Morgan jokes!), for example. I'd rather that be the reason than using research without credit.

It's just that no one who does what Person B did (in your version or mine) does so with the same intent as Person A. They just don't.


Schoenfeld came out here and said that is precisely what he did. He took sj's work, recompiled the statistical information himself, and used it in the exact same context without attribution.

You say that lying if it's not for bad reasons is okay? Is that right? It's okay to lie to your wife and it's okay to lie to the Nazi? Am I reading you correctly?

Yes, I am.

The reason why people don't cite extensively is that to meet an incredibly strict standard of plagiarism, to assure oneself of absolute ethical purity, you WOULD have to go to absurd lengths. Virtually every sentence would have to be cited.

I've written a lot of sentences on this forum, so have you. None of them by you required citation. The ones that I used that needed citations where cited. That is just not true, or close to being true. If you use someone else's work you cite it. Have you never asked someone here "Got a link" In Simmons column that was the only thing that needed to be cited. Anything about his dad, or the score of the Celtics game, or Pierce melting down doesn't need cites. In fact, Simmons did cite it, and used more text than citing SJ. There is nothing absurd about this instance.

So we set a limit on what needs to be cited. Some people might set that limit at a different place than you.

Dammit baldrick, how many times do I have to say this. It isn't about you, or me, or Pops, or fukking Boots Day. Its about what the ethical standard is for plagiarism. That is external to my opinion and its external to your opinion. Its not about ethical purity, its about the fact that it was stolen and unattributed. And that external limit is what matters. And unless you are involved in journalistic or publication ethics there is no "we" in the sentence.

That doesn't make them unethical, even if they might technically violate rules on plagiarism. They're just avoiding a negative the same as you try to avoid a negative by lying to your wife.


No its not. There is no negative. Schoenfeld had to find, research, and identify this situation. There was no negative to his citation, unless you think a permissable negative is losing readers. And Bootsy thinks this wouldn't happen because my writing is intolerable. And that is not a permissive negative; that would be self interest. The only reason he didn't cite it is because Schoenfeld thinks he is above the standard or that he can set the standard.

Their intent is not to do harm, just like your intent in your admitted violations was not to do harm. They're not doing anything they find to be wrong, and most people would agree with them. Just like jaywalking, it's not worth raising much of a fuss about.

Their intent is to do harm. Why not cite. There was no harm to cite; nothing was saved by not citing. Schoenfeld told you why, because he didn't have too. If it was a mistake that is different. If it would have intefered with the article, I might buy your line of thought.

I will say this: I think the author fails both parts.

I agree at least wrt Schoenfeld. I don't think Simmons did anything wrong.

Oops, you are correct. The editor dropped the ball on this one.

In general, no one "owns" statistics, unless it is something that is extremely unusual, like perhaps the stuff Jayson Stark uses (and often cites sources for) or is something "not readily available" such as PAP or Win Shares or something.

Ownership deals with copyright law. I have said at least five times that this is not about copyright law.

It's not easy to count the number of citizens in the United States, but it is perfectly fine to refer to 280 million Americans without citing the U.S. Census Bureau.

Yep, easily checkable and generally known. But if you start going into the population growth percentage in Lousiana as a proposition that crawfish are more tasty, you either need to crunch the numbers yourself or cite who crunched the numbers. You especially need to do this if you are lifting the whole idea of pop. growth and crawfish from a single source.

"The Cowboys are XX-XX when Emmitt Smith rushes for 100 yards (I guess you don't hear it anymore, but you know what I mean)."


Plenty, and it is derived by members of the broadcast team, not culled from Will Carroll illustrated.

Speaking the way he does will consistently invite questions from people like me who want to determine his stance.

There is nothing ambiguous about my stance. I answered sj's question about plagiarism correctly and accurately. After Schoenfeld responded, I think he unequivocably committed plagiarism based on his admission.

My "stance" is immaterial. He did, and nobody has remotely brought forward any minutia of a defense. They have spun around "I think it means" and not one iota of that is relevant.

Stuff like sports trends stats almost never fall in this "should attribute" category --

To give an example, about 45 seconds ago ESPN said that the Mets joined the Mariners (forget which year) as the only teams to lose their first five games or more and then go on a winning streak to go over .500. I had heard the same fact on WFAN earlier tonight.

This is a lot more obscure than Yankees-Red Sox HBP. It is very likely that both WFAN and ESPN got that fact from the same source, maybe Mets PR or Elias or AP or a Mets beat writer. Neither of them sourced it. It's just not done.

Backlasher, you said this is about external standards and I told you what they are.

That stat in 147 was provided by Elias. It is included here media notes.

If anyone is interested in actually providing some authority, knock yourself out. I did a quick google search of "plagiarism use statistics"

In the first two pages, I found six universities with policies that define that using another statistics without attribution is plagiarism. Augusta State applies on the "generally known" test and does not even apply the "easily checked" test. I have not seen a school yet that applies "easily checked" to the use of someone else's statistics.

Anybody who has got anything more than sophistry, please step forward.

Backlasher, you said this is about external standards and I told you what they are.


I lost you baudib. Are you talking about your poll that you have not conducted?

One last question for those in the know. Are Skipper and Walsh still the VP's of ESPN Internet Group? If we are going to do our poll, we may as well invite them in too.

In many cases, media services who get info from Elias will give Elias credit. But if it's Elias info distributed by the team, it may not be, because information given to journalists, "notes" type information, is almost never given attribution.

I did a quick google search of "plagiarism use statistics"

In the first two pages, I found six universities with policies that define that using another statistics without attribution is plagiarism.

Academic standards are different from journalistic standards.

I lost you baudib. Are you talking about your poll that you have not conducted?

No, I told you what the standards are in the newsgathering business and cited examples.

Are Skipper and Walsh still the VP's of ESPN Internet Group? If we are going to do our poll, we may as well invite them in too.

I don't know why you would take their word when you didn't accept ESPN's baseball editor's word. I would recommend Jim Romenesko or anyone at www.poynter.org.

BTW, I rather enjoy arguing with Backlasher. This is the first time I've done it. I don't know why you guys get so uptight about it.

"If ESPN regularly appropriates the ideas of others without acknowledging the source, "

I think of this much much differently, and I say it as someone who writes a good deal of things that could be used elsewhere.

I agree with Schoenfield.

I agree with Boots.

If SJ had said "the Red Sox have hit a lot more Yankees since 2001", and then Dave generated the data, would that be plagiarism? Because that's what he did. Except that "the Red Sox seem to hit a lot more Yankees than the Yankees hit Red Sox" is an idea that simply exists. SJ certainly didn't cite where *he* got the idea to even look up the numbers. He heard Michael Kay say on a broadcast "since 2001, the Yankee hitters have been hit twice as much as the Red Sox hitters" (which Kay read in his media notes *FROM ESPN*) so he actually did some legwork.

If you do the legwork, the data is re-done, and IMO, no atribution is necessary (unless the idea is particularly novel, which this wasn't).

I mean cricky, every idea has been generated through these pages - all sorts of conspiracy theorist - I cite threads in my articles, but it isn't possible to cite everything I overheard on TV or in an elevator. Heck, I don't even know where every idea I have ever had has ever come from.

Read my comments after my 2004 Mets Season Preview.

I am amazed at a lot of the posters in this thread. Clearly Schoenfield's behavior is highly unethical, and clearly this is plagiarism, for all the reasons BL gave and more.

I would add that time "on air" is precious, which is why ESPN didn't attribute Elias for that stat - but they absolutely would have in a printed column. It is quite possible that Elias waive attribution for "on air" cites.

I hope the posters who think this isn't plagiarism don't work in academia, the media, or any business where you need to produce ideas.

Oh, and I think sending out that survey is a brilliant idea. I think you should also include SI.com or some other major online competitor of ESPN.

As a complete novice, I agree with Backlasher. It seems to me that Schoenfeld saw the stat, made sure it was right, then used it without saying from where he got it.

But I would be willing to entertain the idea that academic and journalistic standards are different regarding plagiarism. Not that anyone cares what I would entertain, since I am an admitted novice.

I hope the posters who think this isn't plagiarism don't work in academia, the media, or any business where you need to produce ideas.

Of course I am.

But I understand the difference between noting that I read some stat somewhere and what actual intellectual property is, with it having to be defined to the nth degree.

I would really like to see this go 1000 posts, so let me add my opinion and then add an additional inflammatory point and then we'll see what the fire does with the gasoline.

First, I think there has to be a line between citable and uncitable viewpoints. For the vast majority of people they learned everything from somewhere, and if I write this post and publish it for money, I don't need to cite my parents and every teacher I had for teaching me sentence structure. In baseball analysis, the threshhold for allowing the copying of basic pieces of statistics is high, and we should be thankful for it--if we had to cite the person who first thought of BBs, was the first to tabulate them, and the person who tabulated them for the 2004 season and then the same for hits, PAs, and the idea to divide them everytime we use OBP in an article, it would be very combersome and I think I would go teach myself a new langauge and read Korean sports newspapers instead.

Where is the other threshhold? Well, it's a grey area, it seems like some newer statistics are transitioning now--some people credit McCracken, others don't. Some people still toss in props or hate mail to Holtzman on the save, others don't.

The current case is a little tougher, because it was a common sense statistic but with specific endpoints. But the process to come up with the end points was hardly scientifically novel. It sounds like it was just an arbitrary endpoint to make the stat sound interesting.

So I think ESPN would have been a lot cooler if they had given props--it builds the baseball community and its atmosphere, but they are not obligated to.

The last thing I want to add is the way race and gender and political leaning play a role in how professional trangressions such as plagarism or racist speech are handled. I like Jayson Stark, but he made a serious, serious breach of journalistic standards and he is not being punished the way the other Jason was. Fox News fabricates information in the same way that Dan Rather's team did over and over again, but no heads roll.

If you look at the case of Ghettopoly, or the "Tsunami Song" people of color slurred other people of color in no worse way than ethnic majority public figures often slur people of color. The people of color lost their jobs or businesses, but the ethnic majority people do not.

I hope that plagarism is enforced. I hope it is also enforced equitably. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the evidence, but before anyone says, "No, according to my amazing (ethnic majority) gut instinct, I know you are paranoid and wrong!" I'd like to see at least evidence (like I've provided) and hopefully data. (I don't assume that I would get such reaction from BTF, but it is the reaction I generally get from ethnic majority society along with "you have a chip on your shoulder".

Hey, Ghettopoly... another Taiwanese man!

Sweetness, I see my fellow banana countrymen are contributing to this society.

I wish I could say my blog wasn't racist, but that just wouldn't be true.

What did Jayson Stark do? Are you talking about Peter Gammons?

####. Terrible mistake on my part. *Punches self in the head* *looks for edit button*

I got too many Jasons running through my head. Thank god, I'm not a major media source--it's easier than it looks huh?

First, I think there has to be a line between citable and uncitable viewpoints.

Which is why they create standards and as professionals; journalists shoud know them.

You seem to be substituting your own viewpoint of where the line *should* be for an easily available standard that exists.

If you think the standard is too exacting then fine, whatever. Do you still think a journalist is behaving ethically when they make unilateral decisisions that fall into the category of behavior disallowed by their peers who promulgated the professional norms?

I don't need to cite my parents and every teacher I had for teaching me sentence structure

This absurdity doesn't fall within any definition requiring a cite that has been given. No one has suggested he do this.

There is a standard for plagiarism, he failed it. He can't be sued over it. So what? Professional ethics should be something higher than the minimum level of behavior that escapes the reach of the law.

Professional ethics should be something higher than the minimum level of behavior that escapes the reach of the law.

Thats it. I'm starting a new profession, with a new set of ethics. Lets call it "Gutter writing"... Nah, I don't need to, I'm on the less highly strung side of the sea. It's your playground, if you want to create a culture of fear it's up to you.

But, "highly unethical"? Nothing is like seizing the moral high ground and sniping from there.

I did a quick google search of "plagiarism use statistics"

Shouldn't you have just asked Danny to do it for you?

Ok, now that I've gotten the obvious joke (my specialty) out of the way:

1) Good thread; interesting thoughts on both sides.

2) I think I agree broadly w/ Backlasher that Schoenfield erred, though not with all of Backlasher's reasons.

The HBP data strikes me as "easily checked." It doesn't take long, and the data is readily available. Sure, many people may not know how to find it, but that doesn't much sway me; many people would be hard-pressed to tell you where to go to find current US population estimates. Many people simple aren't good at this sort of thing; doesn't mean it isn't "easy."

While we're on the topic, I think the requirement for a cite for for facts "not generally known or easily checked" means "anything not (generally known or easily checked)". In other words, if it is generally known OR easily checked, no cite needed. I think this both because that's how the sentance reads to me (though I grant that it could be worded more clearly) and because that's the only reading of it that makes sense to me.

Example: Martin Luthor King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech on August 28, 1963. Is that date "generally known"? I would say that it certainly is not. Is it easily checked? Yes. I think a cite is completely unnecessary. Examples like this and others render nonsensical the contention that "not generally known or easily checked" means a cite must be given if a fact is EITHER not generally known or not easily checked.

So, I think SJ's HBP qualifies as "easily checked" ... what's my problem with Schoenfeld's actions? Backlasher and others have been pretty persuasive that Schoenfeld knowingly stole SJ's idea. The idea of comparing HBP data in head to head games, the time frame in question ... Schoenfeld got it from SJ, and he admits that. He should have disclosed it. Maybe his failure to disclose that fact isn't "plagiarism" or violation of copyright. But that doesn't make it much better in my mind. It's still dishonest (in passing off the work and thoughts of others as his own), rude, and generally bad form.

Backlasher is pretty sure Schoenfeld committed plagiarism; others are pretty sure he didn't ... I'm not sure, but I also don't care all that much. It's clear to me that he did something wrong, and something not particularly honest. I don't think he did it maliciously, and I hope he'll be more careful next time.

^^ I agree entirely with MNP's post. The other thing I meant to bring up but forgot is that Schoenfield is getting attacked not only for not getting his writer to give props, but also for being honest and open about it.

We have to be careful, otherwise people have a strong incentive to just say, "Yeah, I thought of it independently and cut off the statistics there because it was the most logical place and so there was no way I could have cited it!"

If he had said, "Yes, I took it from here, and I'm sorry I should have cited it--We'll put that on the ESPN page tomorrow." That's more than enough for me.

If he had said, "Yes, I took it from here, and I'm sorry I should have cited it--We'll put that on the ESPN page tomorrow." That's more than enough for me.

You realize ESPN linking stuff to Primer just makes them seem "lame" to the casual fan right??

"ESPN can't even do it's own research. It needs a bunch of little spreadsheet nerds to do it for them! On to Fox sports for us now!"

I didn't read the whole thing here, but I want to point out that teams routinely have media packets that they distribute to writers, who routinely pick stats out for use in their articles.

I don't know if anybody's mentioned this yet, but Simmons would have a serious image problem if it came out that he got his material from a Yankees fan.

TwoAlous:It is quite possible that Elias waive attribution for "on air" cites.

This isn't quite true, because I know Tim Kurkjian (sp?) cites them a lot on television.

Dial: He heard Michael Kay say on a broadcast "since 2001, the Yankee hitters have been hit twice as much as the Red Sox hitters" (which Kay read in his media notes *FROM ESPN*) so he actually did some legwork.

Maybe he should have cited. There is some gray area here, obviously, but anyways I can accept him not citing since the Kay statement was far more general in nature than SJ's post which was used by Schoenfield.

MNP: Many people simple aren't good at this sort of thing; doesn't mean it isn't "easy."

I consider that the very definition of 'easily checked', at least from a society point of view (which I think is clearly the POV necessary here).

MNP:Yes. I think a cite is completely unnecessary [in the MLK situation]

I would tend to agree. But, I think that is far easier and less time consuming to check than what we are discussing here. As already mentioned, to check the HBP data you have to go through over 50 box scores, tabulating the data as you go (and know where you can find box scores to games in 2001, which I don't think a lot of the population knows how to find).

I would tend to agree. But, I think that is far easier and less time consuming to check than what we are discussing here.

You're responding to a portion of my post that wasn't addressing the ease of checking, but rather the "generally known or easily checked" qualifier.

I consider that the very definition of 'easily checked', at least from a society point of view (which I think is clearly the POV necessary here).

So, just because a lot of people don't realize the Census Bureau's web site is a pretty obvious place to go to find population data, that means it's something that's "hard" to check? Just because most people don't know that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has current employment data on it's web page means the unemployment rate isn't "easily checked"? It involves 7 keystrokes in your web browsers location bar, and waiting half a second for the page to load. You don't get much easier than that, regardless of how many people don't know how to do it. There are plenty of things I don't know how to do that I'll be happy to stipulate are "easy."

As already mentioned, to check the HBP data you have to go through over 50 box scores, tabulating the data as you go

I would consider that very easy, and slightly tedious. Obviously, "easily checked" is a subjective measure, though.

(and know where you can find box scores to games in 2001, which I don't think a lot of the population knows how to find).

I agree many/most people won't know where to find them. I just don't think that makes it difficult.

I looked the 2000 HBP data to see whether the 2001 cutoff was arbitrary or necessary to make the stat. In 2000 the Red Sox hit 9 Yanks, and the Yanks hit 1 Red Sox. If there were any independent research above and beyond looking at SJ's post, why not include 2000?

I agree many/most people won't know where to find them. I just don't think that makes it difficult.

I disagree. If many/most people find it hard to locate where they can check a fact, then it isn't easily checked.

I would consider that very easy, and slightly tedious

I suppose it depends on what definition of 'easy' you want to use. One that focuses solely on brain capacity needed, or one that also includes effort. Consulting dictionary.reference.com, either one could be used.

I would consider that very easy, and slightly tedious. Obviously, "easily checked" is a subjective measure, though

How about the "typical Bill Simmons reader".

IMO, the fact that duplicating the information involves the re-compiling from original game reports pretty much makes it not "easily checked".

I think ...

Once again, it does not matter what you think or I think. What matters is what is the agreed upon code of professional ethics.

As Pops already pointed out, Dial's list is absurd. No one has ever suggested that you have to cite your mom, and you don't have to cite things generally known.

My offer is still open, I've posted multiple places that make these determinations. I have yet to find a single instance where using a statistic compiled with someone else is permissable under the plagiarism code of ethics. Baudib claims that if you ask copy editors, its ok, because journalists are allowed to be more unethical than academics. Yet, baudib still hasn't produced a single editor that has showed it was permissable.

But, I'm game. I talked with my neighbor and father-in-law today. The former is an editor at a pretty large newspaper; the latter is a fromer managing editor at the same paper. Both told me how I can contact other editors and I will. The current editor's opinion was "it sounds pretty sleazy." The former managing editor deferred saying those decisions where handled by the "other side of the house" meaning that he just dealt more with the financial aspects.

If he had said, "Yes, I took it from here, and I'm sorry I should have cited it--We'll put that on the ESPN page tomorrow." That's more than enough for me.


I could live with that too. Instead he said, "Yes I took it from here and I don't have to cite it."

The daily newspaper should be an original work. Do not borrow someone else's words without attribution.

San Jose Mercury News Published Ethics Guidelines. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/contact_us/about/9723906.htm

As Pops already pointed out, Dial's list is absurd. No one has ever suggested that you have to cite your mom, and you don't have to cite things generally known

Know what I hate? When someone attributes something to me that I never said.

Pops didn't already point it out, and I didn't speak of my mother.

OK, as a working writer and editor in book publishing, I can say that it looks to me as if Schoenfield/ESPN ought to have acknowledged a source for these HBP stats.

However, since the facts are there for anyone with access to HBPs on a team v team basis to work out, Simmons could have gotten away with it if he had pretended he had researched the information himself. Preferably, he could have taken it back to 2000, simply by adding an additional year of research himself.

It's considered fair practice by commercial publishers for a mass market to use other people's work in the way it appears in Simmons article, although ethically one ought to offer some kind of acknowledgment like 'according to something I saw on www.baseballthinkfactory.org'.

Maybe it's not nice to the amateur (in the good sense of that word), but it is well known that the average mass-market reader doesn't like to be troubled by footnotes. Don't blame the journalist for this laziness, blame the readers.

Maybe it's not nice to the amateur (in the good sense of that word), but it is well known that the average mass-market reader doesn't like to be troubled by footnotes. Don't blame the journalist for this laziness, blame the readers.

fra paolo,

The question isn't "if this goes on all the time...?" Of course it does. It remains "Should it?" As Backlasher has so tirelessly shown, the "ethics" resources indicate that certain "knowledge activity" be acknowledged and attributed. In addition, the "netiquette" of which the internet came of age under, agrees. The revolution of the internet community is supposed to be the "great equalizer" for the 'common individual' and I certainly resent the pre-existing power structure just considering it as "business as usual." It's not, and it never should be.

-----------
trevise :-) ...

IF Schoendfeld did take an original idea from sj, then it is plagiarism.

But if it is NOT an original idea, as Dial states, is it still plagiarism? According to Dial:

"SJ . . .heard Michael Kay say on a broadcast "since 2001, the Yankee hitters have been hit twice as much as the Red Sox hitters" (which Kay read in his media notes *FROM ESPN*) so he actually did some legwork."

Now I don't know that this description of the source of sj's idea is accurate, because I decline to look it up, but assuming it was, then in order to know that it was "twice as much", ESPN had to do some spadework in the first place. So all sj did was to further quantify information that came from ESPN through Michael Kay. Schoenfeld took back the information/idea his company originated.

Which brings up the issue -- If you see something on the internet, how do you know that it is original with the poster? In this case, assuming Dial is correct, the idea is not in fact that original. It was originated by ESPN and percolated through the internet and back to ESPN, like some modern day game of telephone.

My conclusion: Schoenfeld may be guilty in his heart of plagiarism, but if he had in fact done the spade work, he would have discovered that attribution to sj was not in fact appropriate, because he would have been led back to the original source, which was ESPN.

Uh, my story was completely made up.

But, no offense to SJ, I know many of my ideas come from something I heard. Usually it is more like I hear someone say "Sac flies are bad", so I try to see if they are good.

I don't think that's plagiarising an idea. Even if I find out they are bad.

I am sure that Schoenfield had heard that the Red Sox hit more batters than the Yankees in their battles.

Uh, my story was completely made up.

Could have fooled me. And did.

But, no offense to SJ, I know many of my ideas come from something I heard. Usually it is more like I hear someone say "Sac flies are bad", so I try to see if they are good.

I don't think that's plagiarising an idea. Even if I find out they are bad.

That depends on how much they take. If you find out they are bad by running a specific test because of a comparison of X and Y; and somebody comes along, reads it and publishes a column that says "I know sac flies are bad, because if you look at X and Y, it shows it", THAT is plagiarism.

If people say the Red Sox hit more batters than the Yankees, that is one thing. If sj says, if you go back and look at the data from 2001 to date, you find out that the Sox have hit the Yankees X times compared to Y times, and somebody then prints that, even if they double check your math, I think BL is right, that is plagiarism too, plagiarism of an idea of how to check out a specific thesis. Not necessarily a major idea, not a particularly meaningful piece of work, but still, DS did not think of it, he read SJ's thoughts, fact-checked them and gave it to Simmons to publish.

My conclusion: Schoenfeld may be guilty in his heart of plagiarism, but if he had in fact done the spade work, he would have discovered that attribution to sj was not in fact appropriate, because he would have been led back to the original source, which was ESPN.

Just curious, when did kay say this?

And FWIW, the stat originally posted in a game chatter intro last july, by me, the day after the ARod fiasco.

Oh, that the Kay thing isn't true makes this more clear cut...

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that not citing was the wrong thing to do. But I'd definitely say that citing would have been the right thing to do.

And by the way, I am by no means upset about this, I probably would have made a more subtle intro had I known this was a monster huge deal.

Whatever it is that you believe, I'm quite sure that I belive the op cit.

As already mentioned, to check the HBP data you have to go through over 50 box scores, tabulating the data as you go (and know where you can find box scores to games in 2001, which I don't think a lot of the population knows how to find).

Actually, you don't need to do all that. You can use the splits pages on espn.com, Shouldn't take more than a couple minutes.

Actually, you don't need to do all that. You can use the splits pages on espn.com, Shouldn't take more than a couple minutes.

Even then, the fact that it seems everyone here thought the retrosheet way was the only way to check this, it falls back to the same point of people not knowing how to check the fact (and thus in my opinion, not being easily checkable).

First, I can't believe we're actually having this discussion about whether or not this is appropriate. It's clearly not. I don't know how indicative this is of a problem at ESPN-I suspect that the vast majority of the time, they're handed reams of stats that the Network has purchased/produced, or that teams have produced, with the understanding that they can be used without attribution. Simmons' dick editor seems to have taken that to the extreme of "I can take any idea I want and use it without attribution".

As for the suggestion that acknowledgment would sink columns...come on. The typical Simmons column is what, 130,000 words? It's not like they're generally full of factually based statements-"I like the OC", "Why didn't they bring back Cabrera?", and "The lesson, as always? I'm an idiot."-don't need to be cited. It wouldn't kill him to do this. Moreover, there's no way that he would have taken a similar statement from someone like Tom Verducci, and used it without credit. His editor would have known the difference there too.

More broadly, I'm curious about the division in reactions here. I'm not much of a baseball researcher, but I sink a fair amount of time into compiling and analysing some hockey numbers. I usually proceed to post it in a public forum, where there will be discussion about it. I'm always careful, even in that informal context, to credit any of the posters who've said something that made me want to investigate, or to credit someone whose numbers I've used. I suspect that most people who actually devote some time to compiling/producing this information and who aren't being paid to do so would be pretty bitter were it to be used by someone else, particularly if it were used by someone else who's getting paid for it. I certainly would be.

SJ, it's not my battle fight, but I think you'd be well advised to email ESPN and complain about this. BL is right that it's serious, and it speaks to a culture of entitlement that at least some of their editors have to ideas that appear in non-traditional environments. Send a complaint, attach Schoenfield's message to it, and see what they say. If they say nothing, send it to the writer that Gammo plagiarized at the LA Times and ask him what he thinks.

I certainly resent the pre-existing power structure just considering it as "business as usual."

Don't we all. Most of my work is with little packagers and publishers, not the Bigfeet companies.

But that's what they do. The arrogance of the media is a known phenomenon, and widely resented.

However, it's worth bearing in mind that mass-market writers have been doing similar jobs to their own for quite a while, too. There's a lot of resentment when one side scoops another, occasionally to the point of only acknowledging the scoop indirectly.

The typical Simmons column is what, 130,000 words?

Too many zeros there!

I don't think that's plagiarising an idea.

Its not.

I am sure that Schoenfield had heard that the Red Sox hit more batters than the Yankees in their battles.


He probably did, and he heard the specific amount from 2001 from sj. There is no question of fact here. Schoenfeld admitted he took SJ's work, redid the math, gave it to Simmons, and didn't cite it because "he didn't have to."

The only remaining question is does this constitute plagiarism. To me, its not even close, but to many it seems to be a close issue. So, I've cited opinions on them. Most come from academic institutions. So the only remaining question is baudib's. Do journalists have a lower standard of ethics.

Clearly, Bootsy and Schoenfeld do have a lower standard of ethics; however, is this acceptable in the field of journalism. This is from Poynter, I presume no one is going to quibble about this being the industry magazine for journalists:

We credit the authors and creators of the various forms of journalism we publish. We apply appropriate scrutiny to work by staff and contributing writers to prevent plagiarism, intentional or otherwise.

Elias

I haven't noticed lately, but the Braves telecasts use to credit the source of all statistical information in the credits. I will check the next MLB broadcast to see if this is still the case.

Re-doing the math consisted of simply adding in the results from the series that took place after SJ's post. Not too much work involved there.

The IPC has a very large database of published codes of ethics for journalists. It may be found >here.

I've looked through many of these lists. Most just say "Don't plagiarize" or "Identify sources" However, I'll offer a $100 advertising credit for baseball pages on baseballprimer.com to the first poster that can find me a published journalistic code of ethics from a journalism school or a newspaper or a magazine that states using a statistic that requires computation by a human actor, derived by someone else, without attribution, is permissable for a newspaper, magazine, or the online version of a newspaper or magazine that also has a print copy.

I'll also share this one from the NY Times code published on the same website.

When we use facts gathered by any other organization, we attribute them

Anybody holding anything more than sophistry step forward. I've put my money where my mouth is.

Also, I'm still compiling my email list. This is not easy information to come by. If any of the sophists that think I am going to juice the poll, lay out your quibbles now. Tell me any guidelines that I have to maintain to conduct a fair and reasonable survey of this situation. Tell me any person that you want this to go to. Per earlier posts, I will include the LA Times and Romenesko.

That previous bounty should read baseballreference.com and I will send Sean the $100 by Paypal with your name if you can produce the reference.

Wow. My respect for Backlasher - rising. Maybe it's tilting at windmills but I am appalled by the attitude put forward on ESPN's behalf. I can only hope it's an individual not a corporate thing.

Wow, I'm late to this ballgame, and I haven't read it all, by any means. (Got bogged down early on p. 2.) Anyway, I'm with BL and 2Alous. This is plagiarism. That there has been worse plagiarism (see Ambrose, Stephen and Goodwin, Doris Kearns) doesn't make erase that.

sardonic, the very idea of using HBP to measure animosity was not Schoenfelds. Appropriating an idea is verboten under any circumstances.

I think this is important to the case. I'm suspicious that the idea was also borrowed, not just the number.

Both told me how I can contact other editors and I will.

Make sure to put me on the list.

Hey, have any of you guys who have your panties in such a twist ever read a newspaper or a magazine? Next time, look to see if there are any unattributed facts. You're going to have a lot of letters to the editor to write.

Backlasher:

None of the opinions that you posted or linked to here prove anything other than the obvious fact that journalists should not plagiarize. They shouldn't. No one disagrees with this.

Sports statistics are not original work. They simply aren't. They are compiled by numerous different agencies, Elis, Stats Inc., etc.

I tell you every single person posting in this thread has read countless reports and columns citing sports statistics of much greater detail and obscurity than the HBP totals in Yankees-Red Sox games, and they are normally not attributed to anyone.

BTW, Bill Madden reports on the Yankee-Red Sox HBP phenomenon on April 9 in the NY Daily News:

Hit happens

According to the Elias Bureau, since 2002 through their three games last week, Red Sox pitchers have hit Yankee batters 48 times as opposed to 27 Red Sox hit by Yankee pitchers. In the three games last week it was 5-0 Red Sox with Derek Jeter and Jason Giambi each being plunked twice. It would seem as if some retaliation would be in order this week in Beantown, but as one AL scout observed: "There's a reason Jeter, especially, gets hit so much. He's forever hanging over the plate, leaning in, and any self-respecting pitcher will tell you that's their turf. "

Maybe Elias stole it from SJ.

Two Alous: It is quite possible that Elias waive attribution for "on air" cites.

Spivey:
This isn't quite true, because I know Tim Kurkjian (sp?) cites them a lot on television.

It is, as I have said, normal for media entites who subscribe to Elias, or get information directly from Elias, to cite Elias for stats. But when information from Elias is disseminated by the team, that information is then reproduced by dozens/hundreds of news outlets, generally without attribution.