Scratchpad

Hasty Thoughts on Plagiarism Detection

academia, plagiarism, teaching —

10 May 2010

I spent the weekend applying for jobs, and this included putting together a sample syllabus. It's the first full syllabus I've put together, and it turned out pretty damn well, if I do say so myself. But as I thought about it yesterday evening, I realized that there was one especially nagging weakness in it, and it's that I failed to build my concern about plagiarism into it. Not address it—I've stated clearly that I will fail students for plagiarism. I indicated that I am fully aware of all of the devious little ways they go about plagiarizing (yes, I even know about all 600 paper mill sites, and I can tell you exactly why using each different flavor will not work). But I didn't actually construct my paper writing assignment to prevent them from plagiarizing in the first place. Doh. Such a simple thing. At least I thought of it now, before I actually sit down in front of a class.

At any rate, it got me thinking about the tizzy plagiarism has got academia in, and a few random ideas on detection started popping into my mind.

1. A centralized, university-run database of papers
We do everything else consortium style, so why not this? Currently, professors have the option of submitting papers to Turnitin, but many refuse because of intellectual property issues (Turnitin's schtick is that it keeps copies of submitted papers in order to catch sharing between students and from other such unpublished sources). So why not run such a service ourselves? This would be especially beefy if we could work out some sort of a deal with the big database companies to allow it to also plug in to their backends, simultaneously searching our own collection of papers as well as databases of published papers (although, honestly, Google scholar is getting better at this every day—at the very least, it can identify a citation we need to track down, even if it won't provide us with the full text for it). Free paper mill sites should also be scraped and their papers dumped into the database.

2. Flood paper mills with dummy papers
To be fair, paper mills are already filled with crap papers, which is what makes it so easy to tell when someone has purchased one. But why not go ahead and intentionally submit more—ones that themselves plagiarize shamelessly from web sources (which makes it easy to catch them from a simple Google search), are simply duplicates of well known published papers, or that have hidden red flag words or phrases that professors are made aware of in advance? And then loudly publicize the fact that we are doing it? This is basically the academic equivalent of sending undercover 18 year olds to try and purchase liquor.

3. Sniff our networks
Yes, I can hear privacy people screeching now. For what it's worth, I am a huge privacy advocate, and I believe there are ways to do this that do not interfere with privacy. I picture something like: sniff network for connections/e-mails to/from paper mills; if connection is found, save pages transferred; extract paper from transmission; add to database in #1 or distribute to faculty. At least in this scenario, it is not necessary or even desirable to identify who is downloading the paper. It's only plagiarism, after all, if someone turns it in, and there is neither a guarantee that this will happen or that the person who downloaded it is the one who ultimately submits it. But if someone—anyone—turns it in, we already have a copy ready and waiting for us to compare it to.

That's it for now. I've left out the ways that already exist, thinking instead of more efficient ways (seriously, Googling a suspicious paper and compiling painstaking evidence for several hours just sucks, and when you add that to multiple papers...well, I don't know about you, but I have other things I would much rather spend my time on) than what we already do. I'm sure there are plenty of other crafty, efficient ways to detect plagiarism that I'm not thinking of in this one-off little thought experiment. Any one else have any brilliant schemes?

Comments (0)

Plato and the Poets: WWE Smackdown

academia, open problems —

8 Jan 2010

Revisited the argument of Plato and the poets yet again today. Will this conversation really not die even after 3000 years of us having it? I'm tired of it after only 3 months. My own take, which I'm sure will convince absolutely no one since everyone falls firmly on the side they are to be on, never to leave it again:

Literature and non-empirical pursuits are not unscientific any more than any other sort of observation is. Scientific method, folks. Hypothesize, observe, record, adjust hypothesis. Literature as observation. Don't knock it. It gave us gravity.

Comments (0)

A thought

academia, interdisciplinarity, reading —

10 Nov 2009

Discovered today while doing research for Conzen:

When asked (by Alan Kay, no slouch himself) how in one PhD thesis he managed to invent interactive computer graphics, lay the foundation for object‐oriented programming, invent Computer Aided Design, develop the foundations of constraint programming methods, and prototype novel human computer interfaces, Ivan Sutherland replied "I didn't know it was hard."

Becoming well‐read in the key works in a field is a double edged sword: afterwards we know much about what has, is, and could be done, but we also know what is hard. The key is to then not shy away from the hard problems and big visions, not to pursue the easy answers on small problems that will matter little in a few years, not to have the confidence to go for it!

It has been my experience that a compromise road is to read not within a field but across fields; in many cases the hard problems of one field have already been solved by another field. As we drown in too much information, most shrink to reading within a narrow field; I encourage you instead to read widely, when possible, and
deeply, when necessary. This is not to say that you should not read deeply; it is a certainty that it will be necessary. It is simply to say that, without intent, you will likely never read widely.

-Robin Harrap

Comments (0)

I believe I doing the right thing by studying everyday

academia, access, personal, research —

17 Jul 2009

No updates in a while. I move to Chicago in a month and a half and start up school a month after that. So I've started with the research. It's been keeping me busy. (The title of the post, incidentally, comes from a very apt, funny and sad Google search that someone used to find my site.)

One thing I swore when I created the scratchpad was that I would use it to jot down research notes and make my research process open and accessible. Although I don't realistically think more than 2 or 3 good friends actually read the thing, it was kind of a romantic idea. So I'm a little disappointed with myself that I've turned to a private, pen-and-paper research journal out of a niggling fear that I might get "scooped" if I put all my research up in real time. Sigh. The best intentions are inevitably overpowered by selfish, personal safety concerns. Stupid greed.

At any rate, the work currently has me reading Carl von Clausewitz's On War. I may put up some thoughts on it in the next few days.

Comments (3)

Susan Sontag: Reborn

academia, books, solitude, truth —

19 Feb 2009

Just finished up the first set of Sontag's journals (1947-1963, age 15-30).

journal is narcissistic + speech is social + erotic + has more incentive in the feared

Also, interaction has more opportunity to alter thought? Public vs. private decision making. Similar to C. Sunstein or JS Mill ideas on the public commons, social as a corrective, truth will out, etc. This, of course, assumes the Platonic view that there is some sort of absolute truth that can be attained, no?

One must distinguish "the truth" from "the truth about." It is true that 1) it was snowing and 2) Aaron Nolan put milk in the coffee he brought me. But the truth about, e.g., I.'s and my relationship is not an inventory of what has happened, what was said, done. It is an interpretation, an insight.

...There are degrees of "truth about."

and

The Platonic view of Kant is right. I saw this in my Descartes lecture at SLC this morning.

Truth as correspondence to the facts means that the model of truth is conceived of as information.

+ these statements are true statements because it is, Kabul is the capital of Afghanistan. Introspection will never get you these results. [emp. mine]

So truth is physical and cannot be known through thinking...only experiencing (ie - you would not discover the thing that is Kabul through thought). Everything else is idea/abstraction. Logic, therefore, cannot discover truth. Philosophy cannot discover truth.

Also, her fluctuations on doing academia or doing human interaction were heartbreaking. I've already been struggling with this. If she could not figure out how to balance doing those two things at once, I do not possibly see how I can.

Comments (0)

Science in the everyday world

academia, boundary objects, culture wars, history of science, human-human interaction, misunderstanding, specialization —

6 Aug 2008

Oooh, ooh! Less than 24 hours after I had a lovely if hyperbolic conversation about hating Foucault because he singlehandedly killed academia, Karen sent me a link to her latest article (Science in the Everyday World, Karen Rader and Katherine Pandora) along with a couple of blog reactions to it. And what should the whole mess turn out to be, but about my four favorite subjects! (Academic isolation & specialization, taking things for granted, boundary objects, and human-human interaction, for those keeping track.) Hot damn.

Anyway, first thing that jumps out at me and that I'm embarrassed to realize is that Karen is also very much into finding ways to reconnect academic life to public life. I had no idea. Now - in retrospect - as I look back at her courses, it becomes obvious. But I suppose I took for granted as an undergrad that the fruits of academia were supposed to have some sort of connection with the hoi polloi and so never noticed this as something that drove her reading selections. Ah, for the idealism and naivete of youth.

At any rate. Blah blah blah. The article.

The most interesting thing about the article (at least as far as I'm concerned, the article just said a bunch of stuff I agree with...that's never particularly interesting) is actually in the responses to it. And in this, I think, lies its strength - it makes many of its own points in the reaction to it!

Reaction 1

Fuck those arrogant bitches for saying that history is better than science and that scientists are arrogant bitches. Who do these two think they are, anyway?!

Actually, they said nothing of the sort, but it's fascinating that all the responses so far believe they did. What R&P actually said was that all specialists are arrogant bitches, whether scientists or historians. As a remedy to this, they propose studying and understanding reactions to one's work - both reactions from other academic disciplines as well as reactions from the general public.

But the telling bit is in the reaction. Why did everyone misread this? In setting up a hostility between science and the humanities that doesn't actually exist in the article, are the scientists doing the reading in fact speaking truth to such a hostility? Does the fact that all the reactions also reference each other while making this same mistake mean that the respondents are simply copying each other's reactions? Do closed communities perpetuate mistakes? Would opening up a closed community to outside eyes alleviate such errors? And if that were the case...would....would that mean that R&P are correct to call for outside insight?!

Indeed, I can't help but suspect that this reaction more than any other proves Rader & Pandora just might be on to something.

Reaction 1a

They were incorrect to state that science and history don't get along. I can cite many examples of cross-referencing between these two disciplines.

They didn't state that science and history don't get along, nor did they state that the two don't collaborate. They stated that the two have much to offer one another. The difference is subtle but important. See response to reaction 1.

That said, it is a bit ironic that all the examples put forth as bastions of science reaching out to the public and not being insular are all part of the same Science Blogs community. Science Blogs, in my experience, is ridiculously tightknit and chummy. And insular. Which is precisely what R&P warn against in their article. Again, I feel that the reaction proves the article might be worth listening to, even if it does not say anything especially "new" or "groundbreaking."

Reaction 2

This article does not say anything new or groundbreaking.

No, it doesn't, which is a bit disappointing, I must agree. And yet the reactions to it indicate that it has hit a nerve, and the reactions to it are informative and provide insight in their own right. Which means that it might not be a "sexy" article, but it is clearly useful and necessary.

Reaction 3

Why the fuck were they blathering on about museums?! Museums are actually a place where scientists reach out to the public.

Yes, exactly, Einstein. Studying a place where science and the public interact is a very good way to study how science and the public interact.

Actually, though, this section is very much the heart of the paper, and it actually puts forward a ton of interesting thoughtlets that could be pursued endlessly (presumably Karen doesn't want to blow her wad in this paper and is saving them for her museum book?). But many of the questions left hanging here, even though unanswered, are at the heart of the rest of the article.

Most importantly...What is the purpose of science interacting with the public? Seriously. Ask yourself this question. What is the purpose? What does science gain by interacting with the public? Do they get future scientists? An informed populace? Better public policy? A warm fuzzy feeling? Are they simply doing their part as decent human beings? Will they get useful and informative feedback? New scientific knowledge? Understanding the goal is crucial in designing the best mode of interaction, and it certainly shouldn't be a stretch to think analyzing a place and time period where these questions have already been grappled with would be useful.

Reaction 4

OMFG, they didn't talk about my field's existing body of knowledge in this matter.

That's because they are not part of your field. The whole point of the article was that all fields have something to add to one another. Their example, because it is their field, is that historians of science have something to add to science. That does not preclude the reverse scenario, nor does it preclude some other field having something useful to bring to some other table.

Reaction 5

Rader and Pandora do not propose adding anything to scientific knowledge.

No, they didn't. It's too bad they didn't have the balls to, either, because it wouldn't be much of a stretch to have done so, and it's the one thing that would have most improved the article. R&P would posit doing their part as decent human beings and getting useful feedback as the reason for bridging the gap between science and the public. Personally, I would add new scientific knowledge to that. Recognizing where people understand - and, more importantly, misunderstand - science holds the key to identifying holes in scientific knowledge. You don't learn the most interesting things by repeating the same things over and over. You learn new things by finding anomalies. Errors. The unexpected. Seeing where the reaction doesn't match what you expected it to be.

Truthfully, I think the article didn't go far enough. The main point is that alternative sources of information are useful because they can bridge the divide between science and the populace, but as far as I'm concerned it should have also said that alternative sources of information can rectify blindspots with a discipline. Perhaps this was implicit. Perhaps not. But I wish they would have had the balls to have said it outright. Yes, I absolutely agree with the article that as human beings and functioning members of society, academics owe it to their fellow citizen to engage with them and show them a level of respect - if not as peer specialists, as peer human beings. But I also believe that this lack of respect blinds academics to errors in their own thinking. They begin to take certain facts for granted, when it would only take a listen to different quarters to realize the error. Diversity is not vital merely because it is the right thing to do (which, granted, is damn important). But it also has important practical implications in that it can help overcome shortcomings within a field. IMHO, any academic that does not look outside the field for sources of inspiration should be considered both negligent and incompetent as a practitioner.

Reaction 6

(My reaction)The article does not actually bridge the gap between science and the public.

Ironically, the article proposes to bridge a gap, but fails to speak to either scientists or the public in their own language. Technically speaking, the article's propositions are sound (which I hope perhaps I've shown a bit above). But it doesn't quite manage to sell itself. Since it seems to be trying to sell itself to the scientist at this point, I think that Reaction 5 is the most damning. They aren't proposing to add anything new to science. Which, to the scientist, apparently, is all that matters?

The response to reaction 5 was telling because it indicates where scientists' priorities lie. At least one reaction actually belittled R&P for being so provincial as to give a shit about being decent citizens. "Fuck that silly nonsense," the respondent might as well have said. "Scientists just want something that'll matter in a lab."

Indeed. Perhaps that was the most telling response of all. Fuck the public, those stupid twats. And fuck you, you useless historian. You have not increased my specialized knowledge of science, and so you have just wasted the 30 minutes of my time that it took to read your article. (To be fair, this is not literally what he said. I am putting a lot of subtext here. He also appears to be a historian putting himself on shaky ground by speaking for scientists, instead of actually being a scientist? Nonetheless, based on the response, scientists either do have this attitude or other people believe they do...and there's something interesting to be gleaned from either scenario.)

In the end, the article was technically right on all counts. But it failed at least partially in its stated goal because it either forgot its audience or misjudged their reaction badly. Apparently, talking about science is not enough for the historian to do. They must also sell it back to the scientist. At this point, learning from the reactions might be the most useful thing R&P could do.

Update:
Katherine Pandora and Karen Rader have posted their own response to this and the other responses I mentioned. Their response can be found on Pandora's blog.

Comments (3)

Edge Cases

academia, edge cases, fear, innovation —

13 Feb 2008

Great post over at Blue Flavor about the evil of edge cases. It speaks to me on the obvious level of web work and my current job, but it also really jumped out at me as being applicable to a lot of other areas, especially academia. In particular, it beautifully explains the tendency of graduate students (and, by extension, the later faculty members they become) to focus solely on the problems in an argument and thus miss the big picture. They seem to gain an impeccable ability to deconstruct, but no real impressive ability to construct.

At the end of the day, I think it comes down to the Behar quote included at the end: "If you stick your head out, you can't be afraid to have it cut off." We need less fear in academia. It holds us back. We need to be willing to make mistakes and look like idiots every now and then for the ultimately larger payoff of solving an intractable problem or discovering something new.

Comments (0)

Quick Notes on Digital Scholarship

academia, digital scholarship, research tools, web 2.0 —

15 Jan 2008

I had a truly pleasurable conversation with some faculty members recently about the possibilities that Web x.0 has for academia. I'm sad to say it was far to short to really delve into the endless possibilities that are out there, and for all the enjoyment I had, I also left feeling terribly dissatisfied at how little we were able to even scratch the surface.

So, if you'll bear with me, I am just going to throw an off-the-cuff list up here right now so that perhaps next time I get the chance to have such a great chat, some of these things will be more at the forefront of my mind and I will be able to pluck at them more quickly without grasping....

Network growth

Tools that allow you to discover like-minded researchers you may not have previously known about.

del.icio.us, vanity searches, any site containing "who links here" (Technorati, RSS subscriber lists, etc), blogs, mailing lists, Citeulike

Network maintenance, solidification

Tools that allow you to connect with existing contacts and strengthen your professional bonds.

social networking, facebook, friendster, blogs, mailing lists, RSS

Research tools

Anything that makes research - both online and off - more efficient, easier

Amazon bib-builder (Turkel) and other sites containing "users who looked at that also looked at this" functionality, Zotero, Citeulike, spiders, RSS, metadata, standards, programming, data viz, Yahoo Pipes, mashups, Swivel, intelligent agents, automated searches, distance collaboration

Public service

Tools that make work accessible, transparent, and meaningful to the public.

Upcoming, Google Calendar, blogs, YouTube, alternative publishing, Second Life, mailing lists

Reputation building

Technically, any of the above! If people know you and you are producing good work, your reputation will increase. This means not just churning out papers, but also putting yourself in the public eye and playing nice with colleagues, collaborating with folks at other institutions, and providing work for the benefit of the public. What good is a brilliant paper if no one else knows it exists?

I know this barely touches on all the possibilities, but it's a down and dirty list of what came to me in the last 10 minutes. There are, of course, dozens or likely hundreds of other possibilities.

Comments (0)

Which is better - to think about food, or to eat food?

academia, culture wars, information, knowledge, progress —

17 Dec 2007

Dan Cohen had an interesting blog post a few days back that I've only just bothered to read. Of course it turned out to be quite fascinating, which just goes to show that I should keep on top of these things better.

At any rate, the post in question is on digitization and repatriation. Specifically, he asks if digital objects, photos, etc. are so finely detailed that they convey as much information as the original object, should museums give back stolen artifacts and keep digital versions of the object for scholars to look at?

The interesting offshoot of this, at least as far as I am concerned, is the question posted by a reader "Which is more valuable - information about an object, or the object itself?" Scholars, naturally, would tend to say the information. Without information, an object is simply a pretty trinket. But when you imbue it with meaning, when you investigate it and understand it, then it obtains actual value.

Although I actually agree with this on a very gut level, as both a fake-scholar and...well...okay, fine an information fetishist, are you happy?....I also differ very deeply from many academics I've met in suspecting that this is a personal obsession and not, in fact, some sort of fundamental truth. I also suspect that this is likely at the core of the public's distrust and turn from academia (another topic of personal fascination and dread). The public, on the whole, doesn't care about ideas. They care about what they can do with those ideas. Ideas, knowledge, information for their own sake are simply wanking. But put those things to good use, and then we have something to subsist on.

So which is better? Cooking up a wonderful and delicious meal and being content in the fact that it's there and we know it's good? Or actually enjoying the fruits of our labor by eating the damn thing?

Comments (0)

New Models for University Publishers

academia, digital, economics, publishing, uselessness —

31 Jul 2007

It turns out, people just don't want to pay for academic books these days. So there've been a lot of rumblings the last few years about the possibility of changing publishing models, particularly for university presses and journals. Should we go digital? Should we have a sliding pay scale? Should we make the author pay for us to publish their work? Should we make the author's university pay?

But, all other things considered, I can't help but wonder if the real issue lies in this tiny, buried statement:

"Stanford rejects about 90 percent of submissions. Of the rejected ideas, Harvey said that about 60 percent either aren't of high enough quality or don't reflect Stanford's emphases as a press. But the other 40 percent are worthy of publication, he said. 'There are a huge number of project that we think "this is wonderful material, but there is a limited market."' " [emphasis mine]
- Inside Higher Ed

The Nature article linked above points the the same problem, even as they fail to note it as a problem (see Table 1).

Really, sometimes I just wonder what the point of academic publishing even is any more, aside from gladhanding and grandstanding. I mean, it definitely doesn't seem to be about educating or disseminating knowledge, so those are pretty much the only alternatives I can come up with given my limited imagination.

Comments (0)