Bill Ackman forgives wife for plagiarism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man. You people are crazy. If MIT explicitly said you don’t need to cite Wiki in their actual plagiarism guidelines, it’s not plagiarism if you followed the guidelines. Insane.

Huh, I was in grad school in the mid aughts and it was explicitly drilled into our heads that Wikipedia is never to be utilized as a reliable source. I didn’t go to MIT though we had higher standards I suppose.

Sure, but MIT appears to have explicitly permitted it.

The standards of the institutions themselves should be controlling here. That’s true for Gay as well. If what she did was permissible at the time, then this accusations of plagiarism should be dropped.

Not that I expect the rabid and clearly insane posters in this thread to understand that.

Oh I am so dumb. Why did she admit in her statement she plagiarized and violation of MIT standards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man. You people are crazy. If MIT explicitly said you don’t need to cite Wiki in their actual plagiarism guidelines, it’s not plagiarism if you followed the guidelines. Insane.

Huh, I was in grad school in the mid aughts and it was explicitly drilled into our heads that Wikipedia is never to be utilized as a reliable source. I didn’t go to MIT though we had higher standards I suppose.

Sure, but MIT appears to have explicitly permitted it.

The standards of the institutions themselves should be controlling here. That’s true for Gay as well. If what she did was permissible at the time, then this accusations of plagiarism should be dropped.

Not that I expect the rabid and clearly insane posters in this thread to understand that.

I would expect MIT to have higher standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Man. You people are crazy. If MIT explicitly said you don’t need to cite Wiki in their actual plagiarism guidelines, it’s not plagiarism if you followed the guidelines. Insane.

So you're free to copy someone else's work without attribution if that work isn't specifically listed in MIT's plagiarism guidelines?

That's a hilarious argument. What $2000/hr lawyer came up with that one? (psst, Bill, you're getting ripped off)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bills losing it

He really is. He's putting it all out there on Twitter. I recommend you check out his posts for some comic entertainment. Elon Musk and Christopher Rufo have already weighed in with their support. Elon is advising him to sue Business Insider. I'd never heard of Ackman before the Claudine Gay debacle. Has he always been this way? One wonders why he didn't tell his lawyers to take care of the matter rather than posting about it every few hours on Twitter.

He’s always been a born rich overconfident loudmouth. Just like Trump. Daddy bought them both into the Ivy League.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man. You people are crazy. If MIT explicitly said you don’t need to cite Wiki in their actual plagiarism guidelines, it’s not plagiarism if you followed the guidelines. Insane.

Huh, I was in grad school in the mid aughts and it was explicitly drilled into our heads that Wikipedia is never to be utilized as a reliable source. I didn’t go to MIT though we had higher standards I suppose.

Sure, but MIT appears to have explicitly permitted it.

The standards of the institutions themselves should be controlling here. That’s true for Gay as well. If what she did was permissible at the time, then this accusations of plagiarism should be dropped.

Not that I expect the rabid and clearly insane posters in this thread to understand that.

Ketamine was not on a schedule until 1999 - more than 35 years after it came to be. Meanwhile EVERYBODY knew they were messing around with something they shouldn't touch. Yet and still there were (and are) people who shrug and say "Sorry about your buddy but it wasn't illegal then."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, Bill Ackman allegedly had a problem with the “antisemitism” of the three deans who appeared before Congress….

But the only ones he went all out to get fired were the two non-Jewish ones…

AND he made sure to smear the black dean as an unqualified diversity hire, which was completely unnecessary to his campaign against her…

Meanwhile, Kornbluth, the Jewish dean remains employed and unbothered.

You are incorrect about Ackman's intentions re: Kornbluth. He's definitely going after her--and all the faculty at MIT. He's also threatened to expose faculty at other elite colleges for plagiarism.

"Already embroiled in a high-profile effort to oust the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Bill Ackman, a hedge fund manager with an estimated worth of $4 billion, says he is now launching a plagiarism check of cell biologist Sally Kornbluth along with all the school’s faculty and its board members. Ackman has for weeks called for the firing or resignation of Kornbluth, a former Duke University provost who became president of MIT 1 year ago. His latest action, announced on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) on Friday, comes after Ackman was angered by two Business Insider exposés of his wife, Neri Oxman, an American Israeli artist and architect who earned her Ph.D. in design computation at MIT. In articles published on 4 and 5 January, Business Insider found that Oxman’s 2010 doctoral dissertation and other academic writing included multiple passages substantially lifted from other academic sources or from Wikipedia without proper attribution."
https://www.science.org/content/article/billionaire-launches-plagiarism-detection-effort-against-mit-president-and-all-its

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, Bill Ackman allegedly had a problem with the “antisemitism” of the three deans who appeared before Congress….

But the only ones he went all out to get fired were the two non-Jewish ones…

AND he made sure to smear the black dean as an unqualified diversity hire, which was completely unnecessary to his campaign against her…

Meanwhile, Kornbluth, the Jewish dean remains employed and unbothered.

He is the woke mob. In an anti-woke world with no DEI Jews are not a protected class and antisemitism(or perceived antisemitism because none of the college presidents have never shown the slightest antisemitism). Anti woke people are okay with antisemitism, cross burning, etc.

There’s a sentiment among certain quarters of Jewish academia that “Asians are taking over” at the expense of smart Jewish students. I’ve heard it first hand from professors who mistakenly think they found a sympathetic ear (I’m an upper income white male).

The whole bruhaha about black or Hispanic students getting undeserving spots is a red herring; they are already minuscule in elite T20. It’s really about getting rid of Asian students to make way for more rich Jewish and WASP legacy kids who have every conceivable advantage in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, Bill Ackman allegedly had a problem with the “antisemitism” of the three deans who appeared before Congress….

But the only ones he went all out to get fired were the two non-Jewish ones…

AND he made sure to smear the black dean as an unqualified diversity hire, which was completely unnecessary to his campaign against her…

Meanwhile, Kornbluth, the Jewish dean remains employed and unbothered.

He is the woke mob. In an anti-woke world with no DEI Jews are not a protected class and antisemitism(or perceived antisemitism because none of the college presidents have never shown the slightest antisemitism). Anti woke people are okay with antisemitism, cross burning, etc.

There’s a sentiment among certain quarters of Jewish academia that “Asians are taking over” at the expense of smart Jewish students. I’ve heard it first hand from professors who mistakenly think they found a sympathetic ear (I’m an upper income white male).

The whole bruhaha about black or Hispanic students getting undeserving spots is a red herring; they are already minuscule in elite T20. It’s really about getting rid of Asian students to make way for more rich Jewish and WASP legacy kids who have every conceivable advantage in life.

To wit, The Tablet has been writing lots of articles about how Jewish students are unfairly getting shut out of the Ivies. And that someone should “do something about it.”

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/ivy-league-exodus

The black and Hispanic students they bemoan are really just a small sliver and usually underrepresented relative to their share of the U.S. population. They are pretty squarely taking aim at Asian students, who are 3-5x over represented in the Ivies. But of course that’s the part they keep silent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man. You people are crazy. If MIT explicitly said you don’t need to cite Wiki in their actual plagiarism guidelines, it’s not plagiarism if you followed the guidelines. Insane.

Huh, I was in grad school in the mid aughts and it was explicitly drilled into our heads that Wikipedia is never to be utilized as a reliable source. I didn’t go to MIT though we had higher standards I suppose.

Sure, but MIT appears to have explicitly permitted it.

The standards of the institutions themselves should be controlling here. That’s true for Gay as well. If what she did was permissible at the time, then this accusations of plagiarism should be dropped.

Not that I expect the rabid and clearly insane posters in this thread to understand that.

I would expect MIT to have higher standards.

Apparently they didn’t, though.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man. You people are crazy. If MIT explicitly said you don’t need to cite Wiki in their actual plagiarism guidelines, it’s not plagiarism if you followed the guidelines. Insane.

Huh, I was in grad school in the mid aughts and it was explicitly drilled into our heads that Wikipedia is never to be utilized as a reliable source. I didn’t go to MIT though we had higher standards I suppose.

Sure, but MIT appears to have explicitly permitted it.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

"What are the chances that Business Insider examined the MIT handbook "as far back as 2007" and didn't notice that there was no requirement to cite Wikipedia nor was it even mentioned until April 4, 2013 when the following language was added:"

That's implicit, not explicit, and given the nature of what Oxman copied -- verbatim technical text, including an illustration -- that really looks like plagiarism to me. That Wikipedia wasn't specifically mentioned in the guidelines doesn't mean she didn't lift the text and then fail to attribute it. Plagiarism guidelines don't have to list every single source you're not allowed to copy from without attribution.

So, going to the Wayback Machine, this seems to be the extent of MIT's plagiarism guidelines from 12/25/2006:
https://web.archive.org/web/20061225133932/http://web.mit.edu/writing/Citation/plagiarism.html

"There are two basic and universal rules regarding the use of information in professional and, especially, academic writing:

If you use the language of your source, you must quote it exactly, enclose it in quotation marks, and cite the source.
If you use ideas or information that are not common knowledge, you must cite the source."

That pretty much accords with my common sense feel. I don't think Oxman met this standard by lifting from Wikipedia, and Ackman appears to be full of poop.

[Anonymous]

Wait... did those accounts get banned after writing about this story??? Is there a link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait... did those accounts get banned after writing about this story??? Is there a link?

They were, but I think they've been reinstated as of 6 or so hours ago.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Well I think it's why he's on a crusade to unveil plagiarism in media so that his wife does not seem so bad. He is a billionaire and egotistical as hell so there is that to consider when you hear him spout off on any topic.