Rocket Talk: Can Sunday Subway Service Start Sooner?
Newsstand: November 19, 2009
Gender Studies Coming to a High School Near You
Please Insert Station and Try Again
The Art of Not Knowing
Hey! Torontoist just got ripped off by The Sun.
From our article on Posterchild's subway pamphlets, published online here on Friday, January 18:
Posterchild––street artist extraordinaire and our new curator for Vandalist––has taken it on himself to fill the empty hooks of the TTC's subways, streetcars, and buses with new and improved information flyers. For the past week, he's posted details of one flyer a day to his blog: Monday was a subway and streetcar colouring book; Tuesday was tips on how to flirt on the subway (pictured above); Wednesday was a guided graffiti tour along the 510 Spadina streetcar route; Thursday was a cryptogram, maze, connect-the-dots game, and riddles; and today's, Friday, was a claim that the whole system is now free.
From Jenny Yuen's Toronto Sun article on Posterchild's subway pamphlets, published online and on the third page of the print edition on Sunday, January 20:
For each week day, Posterchild made up flyers for commuters and hung them on hooks on subway cars and the 510 Spadina streetcar.Each day had a different theme:
Monday was a subway and streetcar colouring book; Tuesday was tips on how to flirt on the subway; Wednesday was a guided graffiti tour along the 510 Spadina streetcar route; Thursday was a cryptogram, maze, connect-the-dots game, and riddles; and Friday's was a claim that the whole system is now free.
(Italics added in both articles.)
Drawing inspiration from Torontoist is one thing––we're used to it from the mainstream media, even though we rarely get credit when we should––but this is different. It is completely irrefutable that that paragraph was lifted directly from us.
So, Sun, and Jenny––we know that you read Torontoist and that you'll see this––drop me a line at david@torontoist.com. Let's talk.
| ADDENDUM: JANUARY 21, 2008
This article implicated Jenny Yuen as necessarily part of the act of plagiarism that took place in the article published under her name in The Sun before such an accusation could be conclusively proven. Such a presumption of her guilt was premature, unfair, and irresponsible, especially for such a serious accusation. Torontoist sincerely apologizes for deeming her guilty until proven innocent; a more detailed explanation and apology are in the comments. We will follow up on this story as more details about the person or persons responsible become available, and we will issue a full apology to Jenny Yuen if it is proven that she was not one of those people. |
| ADDENDUM: JANUARY 22, 2008
The Sun has issued an apology, and Torontoist has responded to it. We now consider the matter closed. |
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
When you get work lifted by a reputable newspaper, you'll know Torontoist has finally "made it".
Reputable?
Ah, I get it.
Jenny writes for BlogTO...just thought I should point that out :)
Not good. Not good at all.
Wow. That's bad.
In addition to her occasional contributions to blogTO, Jenny Yuen has also written for 24 Hours, NOW, Chart, Canadian Restaurant News, Beach Metro News, Post City Magazines, and more. She's also done TV segments for CityTV and others.
The Sun is not the only one doing this sort of thing. CanWest Global does the same thing.
CanWest doesn't believe in plagiarism. No siree, Bob. Not Elizabeth Nickson and others.
CanWest calls it cross-platform media.
Cross-platform is wonderful if you stick to only one medium like the daily paper. But if you also watch the coroporation's newscast, you get the same thing delivered in their trademark machine-gun delivery.
Imitation is supposedly the sincerest form of flattery. With the likes of the Sun and the National Pest, I'd disagree with that assumption.
Really, how hard would it have been to credit David? Totally unethical! What did they teach her at journalism school?
Then again, I expect this sort of behaviour from The Sun. Pathetic excuse for a newspaper.
David, I am filled with ire over this.
Um, instead of treating them like a commenter who's done you wrong, asking them to email you to talk, why don't you contact them?
Oh, and (http://torontoist.com/2008/01/where_does_eye.php#comment-1272888):
Torontoist has covered plenty of stuff before anyone else in the city, and we are often very explicitly cribbed from from other places (whether they're big or small), but we're not about call anyone out on it––first, because that's lame; and second, because someone could just as easily assemble a few anecdotes that would seem to prove we were cribbing from someone else.
Heh.
Look what I found...
http://www.myspace.com/smuggin
Why wait for her to contact you? Her contact info is posted publicly here:
http://www.tripstar.org/jenny/about.html
It's hard to be too hard on the Sun. They aren't accustomed to using words. Aren't they all pictures and colouring book?
By the way, I'm not condoning what Jenny/The Sun has done, by any means. Hopefully she gets seriously reprimanded for it. However, why is it okay for TOist to condone/celebrate Posterchild's "cribbing" of the TTC logo (which clearly wouldn't have been authorized), yet you feel the need to make a huge post and point out that The Sun cribbed you?
How is this any different?
I'm going to guess that the Posterchild use of the logo is satire, while The Sun article is plain plagiarism.
Yeah, satire completely negates copyright/trademark, right? ;)
Also Post remixed the logo so instead of saying "TTC" It says "PC" (ie: Poster Child), which I think falls more into parody than plagiarism.
using a logo in jest and copying and pasting text from an article and then attaching your name to it are very, very different things. Plus Posterchild does not claim he invented and designed the TTC logo, unlike Jenny who penned her name that that piece. She was so lazy/sloppy/incompetent that she copied not only the idea but the text itself.
I get it...it's more socially acceptable to copy something in jest. When you get right down to it, though, it's the same thing.
For the record, I like the Posterchild pamphlets, they're funny and well done. However, it's still using someone else's logo, even if it is modified ever so slightly.
If Jenny's article was a parody of David Topping, then sure, that'd be fine.
This is no different from someone finding an essay online and submitting it to class as their own. Shame on you, Jenny Yuen.
Why not ask the editor of the Sun if they condone plagiarism? From their site: "If you wish to send a letter to the editor, or inquire about the newspaper's editorial policy, e-mail torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca"
I've failed students for plagiarizing on grade 12 English assignments, I'd hope there would be some kind of repercussion for doing it in such a big way.
"This is no different from someone finding an essay online and submitting it to class as their own."
Actually, it is different. Presumably she was paid to produce the Sun article, which adds another serious wrinkle to the situation.
Wait, doesn't it? Maybe the law is different in Canada, but in US copyright law there is a clause that allows an exemption for works of parody.
That is how Weird Al gets away with sampling other artists, for example, even though some of them do not consent. Coolio did not permit Weird Al to use Gangster's Paradise, but could not take legal action against him.
This is plain plagiarism.
Did PosterBoy by any chance write the plagiarised lines for an interview--did that content come from him, or was it actually something David wrote from a primary source?
What I'm trying to say is, if he was interviewed for both pieces, maybe HE provided the same lines to both writers.
But.. if not, then yes, totally lazy writing. I'm eagerly awaiting the Sun's reply, either way!
Seems to me both stories are completely different, and that the one paragraph in question is a point by point description of what happened on each specific day.
Monday's flyer was a subway and streetcar colouring book, that's what it was called.
Tuesday's flyer was flirting on the subway
Wednesday's was a numbered, point by point guided tour along the 510 spadina streetcar route
etc. etc.
Since the stories are different, I wouldn't call this plagiarism at all, these aren't ideas or opinions or conclusions, these are basic point form facts describing specific things.
What's disturbing to me is the turn this has taken. Absolutely discussion should happen when these things crop up, but when people start posting people's personal myspace pages, as opposed to say someone's Toronto Sun email (since this concerns the Sun), then the whole debate takes on a much more ominous tone, something in the witch hunt area. I say shame on whoever posted that, and extra shame on YOU Torontoist for allowing it to sit there.
Are you implying that the 33 consecutive, unaltered words were written by both writers by coincidence?
I tend to agree with paigesix and andrewryanfox. The Torontoist article was more of a blurb while The Sun article actually had (what I assume was) an interview. True the lines in question are verbatim, but how many ways can they be said?
If it was plagiarism we're sure to find out in due time, and seeing how Posterchild is a contributor to this site I don't see why it isn't sooner rather than later.
I'm not implying, I'm ouright contending, even insisting. I've known Jenny for a very long time, went to journalism school with her, dated her, and absolutely, positively know her to be above reproach. Take that for what you will, but I guarantee this is just that, coincidence.
And I still think it's shitty that someone's personal, non-Toronto-Sun-or-journalism related info has been posted on here and allowed to remain, and furthermore that this whole thing was issued in the form of an immature schoolyard challenge as opposed to her at least being contacted and given a chance to defend herself before this went public online. Careers are destroyed over stuff like this, and even if you're convinced she's guilty, the possibility she isn't should give any high-minded person pause enough to at least give someone the benefit of the doubt and ask them first before publicly accusing them.
Yes, there is enough cause here to ask these questions, but David you should have asked her first instead of posting that on here. It's bad journalism on your part. You bitch about plagiarism? Well what self-respecting publication would print an accusation against someone without at least asking for their side of the story first? Not even your hated Toronto Sun, I would imagine...
so would you rather had her state friday first and then thur wed tue mon???
a respectful editor would take care of this behind the scenes. contact the accused and sort it out privately.
david has an obsession with pointing out all that is wrong with all the other media (rosie at the star).
its no surprise he has posted this goofy "we know that you read Torontoist" call publicly.
how old are you? how long have you been in media?
When I said both writers, I meant to say both outlets. It is possible it was inserted by an editor, and not Jenny herself. I, too, have a great deal of respect for her and believe it could have been a higher-up at the paper, perhaps.
However, the probability of the matching descriptions being penned independently is probably about a million to one, so the Sun, at least, is on the hook.
I'm not sure how else she could have written that information in a significantly different way.
So don't you think then that this maybe should have been brought up with them before possibly ruining someone's livelihood with a public accusation?
(that was in response to Kevin, I forgot to blockquote)
It seems a lot of people have no idea how a newsroom actually works. The morning meetings are usually as follows: editor calls reporters to meeting, where the morning's competing papers are spread out. Editor has marker in hand, circles stories in said competing newspapers, and growls, "Why the f@!k didn't we get this story?" Reporters then look down at their shoes and mumble.
The Toronto Star, The Toronto Sun, The Globe & Mail and, more recently, The National Post, have been "borrowing" one another's stories for years! The Internet is merely an extension of a time-honoured tradition. This is not a case of plagiarism per se.
In the age of the blogosphere, blogging about it seems to be the most appropriate thing to do.
Bullshit. We're not naive people here. You get the stink of plagiarism attached to your name when you're a writer and you can be sunk in a hurry. There is absolutely no defense for this, and defending it as being the world we live in just denigrates the supposed quality of this site. You claim to have respect for Jenny but you don't respect her enough to think she warranted being asked for an explanation. How can you respect someone and not give them that benefit?
Anyway I don't want to debate this anymore. I've said my piece, I don't believe she plagiarized, and I do believe that it sucks, very very hard, to forget that you're talking about a living breathing person here. Torontoist doesn't suffer a whit by any of this, but she sure could. I think this has been handled in a very shameful manner.
No, not being an asshole about it is the most appropriate thing to do. This is someone's career. People make mistakes, and if Jenny did plagiarize, she'll have to deal with her boss about it and deal with the consequences. This should've been dealt with professionally, instead of airing dirty laundry on a blog, especially after David's pious statement about not calling people out on copying.
I'm not sure how else she could have written that information in a significantly different way.
There are plenty of ways she could have written it differently. Even if she wanted to use a list format, it would have been easy enough to choose alternate wordings.
That said, I'm conflicted about the way it was handled. On one hand, yes, it could have been dealt with behind the scenes because it might be pretty damaging to her. On the other hand, the major media outlets seem to think it's ok to rip off bloggers (outright stealing, rather than just "borrowing" - major papers refusing to pay for photos because they were already published on the internet and therefore supposedly fair game or reprinting blog articles verbatim without permission or payment). They need to realize that it's not ok. If shaming them publicly is what gets the point across, then I think it's justifiable.
I'm still waiting for someone at Torontoist to respond to Carrie's very valid point of Topping's sudden change of heart on "calling people out." Lame indeed.
Maybe she should have to wear a scarlet "P" to every journalism job she goes after if she's fired over this because of the accusation that's been made here, whether she's guilty or not. That'll really teach the "major media outlets" a lesson...
A lot of good points made here. The more I think about it, the more I think this post should be removed.
I'm with Andrewryanfox on this one. The article wasn't plagiarized. The only thing they have in common is the damn laundry list. This is over the top.
Carly - Significantly different though? Enough to avoid comparison? The article was going to get Torontoist's attention, and comparisons would be made.
Wanting to teach Old Media a lesson is one thing, but this is irresponsible. Instead of calling Jenny and the Sun out, David should have contacted them and got the whole story before inciting a witch hunt.
hey, i just felt the need to comment.
i work for the sun. when i comment here, i'm not speaking on behalf of the paper. i'm speaking as somebody who works in the media, and who might be able to offer some perspective to temper the reckless, irresponsible posts on this page.
the fact is, sometimes mistakes are made in the editing process in which words, sentences, even paragraghs, are hastily removed when last-minute decisions surrounding space are made. this isn't specific to the sun. this happens at every newspaper, whether it be the globe, post, star, sun, etc.
most reporters with at least a few years of experience have been in situations where attribution has been lost in the often-hectic editing process. but because the reporter's name appears at the top of the story, everybody will conclude they're at fault. when they might not be.
my point is, make sure this possibility has been ruled out before singling out a reporter by name on a very public forum such as this.
we're dealing with reputations here. the law surrounding the internet is sort of cloudy these days, but there's no way any newspaper would be able to print an accusation like this without opening themselves up to a lawsuit.
if i, or any reporter, were to ever write a story that essentially convicts somebody based on unproven allegations, regardless of how things may appear, i would be sued. and rightfully so.
so, before torontoist starts going out all guns ablazing, perhaps some sort of dialogue should've been initiated in a more private forum with the reporter and editors involved. the one thing i've found about reporting is that i'm constantly surprised by the way things never really are the way they might initially appear.
apart from that, the fact that somebody here has posted the reporter's personal myspace page is beyond the pale. it's ridiculous this has been allowed to languish on the page still. what's the point of this?
also, as a disclaimer, a few weeks ago, i wrote about the 'rom fake bomb'. i used a significant amount of info from torontoist's interview with the accused. i spoke to david on the phone and everything was pleasant and respectful. i gave torontoist proper attribution and badgered the editors to make sure they included the torontoist photo credit under a picture of the accused. (i forget his name.) i like to think that everything worked out to everyone's benefit.
so, we've all worked together in the past, and hopefully we'll be able to work with each other in the future. i'm not talking specifically about the sun and torontoist, but about all print and internet reporters.
How about this, everyone who's had it with Mr. Topping's desperate tactics stops commenting here, or even reading?
Seems like good medicine for this attention whore.
Do I now have to worry that the email address I used to register and IP address will be traced?
I'm not going to address every comment one by one, but I will restate this: there is absolutely no way that that paragraph is not plagiarized. Everything in it––save for the (see above) and the reference about that day being Friday––is identical. To say that it was impossible to rewrite my paragraph is simply false.
To address Carrie's point, when I said the comment that she quoted I was referring to being cribbed for ideas, not word-for-word theft (a far more serious crime). In the context of the article I replied to––Eye accusing Toronto Life of stealing very broad, general ideas for articles––it's obvious what I'm talking about.
All of you outraged by this article are all welcome to stop reading. If you look at that article, and those two paragraphs, and don't think that that's plagiarism, you do not know what plagiarism is.
Rest assured that I will be in touch with The Sun and Jenny Yuen over the next few days. Whoever's fault it is––and it is surely someone's fault––is responsible. If it turns out that Jenny Yuen had nothing to do with that article and that someone just shoved it in there, I will write something absolving her and append a note about that absolution to this article.
[standing ovation]How very nice of you to assume her guilt and promise to later "absolve her" after she's proven her innocence, David. Well done (in a poorly cooked steak kind of weay)![/standing ovation]
The funny thing is, David, is the only reason you have this unbearable ego is because of lazy editors giving print space to your TTCtardation. Give it all a rest.
You know, I had a bet with someone that when the grand poobah's response came down, it would lack any sort of apology for the grossly inappropriate way in which this whole issue was handled, and would instead be a half-assed, hackneyed attempt to justify a scathing, possibly career-ending personal attack on someone's credibility without even attempting to contact the other side before doing so. The person I bet with figured the article would be pulled immediately in light of some reasoned reconsideration. I just won $10. You're a scumbag Topping. And in your rush to show the world how all the profane corporate media outlets are just waiting to rip off your genius ideas, you maybe ruined someone's life. And you never even bothered to confront the person without the protective armour of your precious blog. You're a coward, and you suck.
David, you stated "very explicitly cribbing," which is the same as very explicitly stealing. Nowhere does it simply specify ideas.
Regardless, your post was in extreme poor taste and unprofessional, and your reply was even worse. Good job.
Pretty disappointing, David. This is a low for Torontoist and the *ist network as a whole. You're dragging down the brand by not retracting this silly, self-serving mistake of a post and apologizing to at the very least, your readership, if not Jenny and the Sun.
Your lack of professionalism in this situation outweighs the copying of a *list* by a novice journo. Honestly, whatever.
Posterchild is your creature, you should be happy a real newspaper took notice of the Vandalist's work, even if it was only the Sun.
David, I don't know how Gothamist has retained you as editor of this site, given that almost everything you write is either to give yourself a pat on the back or to attack someone. You're a heartless piece of garbage and you bring down the great work of every other contributor on this site. I can only hope that you never get a job at a real media outlet, or god help us all.
Take a look at the last few replies, because each of them nails it on the head. You're unbearable, egotistic and a scumbag. Time to take out the trash, Gothamist.
I've sent an E-mail to Jen Chung at Gothamist LLC in regards to this matter. I don't know if they can or will do anything about it, but they should know what kind of conduct is being carried on under their umbrella label. I'd suggest anyone else who feels as I do about this do the same.
jen@gothamist.com
I always find it amusing when people (predictably) respond by saying "Well, if you don't like it, don't come back." They would prefer that the critics just simply disappear, rather than engage them in a proper discourse.
Regardless of everyone's harping of The Sun, I found the above response from their writer to be a lot more insightful and rational than Topping's dismissive and disappointing response.
I registered just so I could comment, so you could imagine this post affected me to some extent.
I don't necessarily agree with people suggesting that David contact the Sun and Jenny privately to sort this out. Simply put, Torontoist wrote the graf first which later appeared in the Sun. As a blog, Torontoist operates with a different style than a newspaper or magazine. If they think it's their prerogative to publish slightly more outlandish material than mainstream media ala Gawker et al, I don't think you can blame them.
However, I do side with the member of the Sun who said that copy editors could have been at fault for the graf's inclusion. If that's the case, it's unfortunate that Jenny's name was attached to the byline.
Finally, I would have really appreciated Jenny to offer something in defense ASAP to Torontoist's claims of plagarism. Sure, she could have conferred with her Sun editors to offer an official statement, but as others have also put it, accusations of plagiarism can destroy a journalist's career and should be acted upon swiftly.
My guess would be the Sun is preparing some sort of legal recourse and she's probably been specifically told not to comment.
So, I guess when you write for a blog, you don't need be held accountable for anything inflammatory that you write? Even though this blog obviously strives for and craves the same credibility and attention that "traditional media" gets?
And have you actually READ Gawker lately? Yeesh. Yeah, watching Nick Denton bait the Scientologists is slightly amusing, but having Torontoist's editor publicly and childishly shame a local writer isn't.
In true Torontoist style you can look forward to "atonement" that consists of David making bad jokes about how ha ha funny this post was.
I read the original and the Sun articles. I can see that the offending paragraph could have been rewritten so as to differentiate itself from the Torontoist words, but it strikes me as very familiar to the similar ways in which articles are written that rely very heavily upon promotional materials. I don't know what you're looking for David but I think what you've managed to acquire is a reputation.
If you decide to continue this uproar to draw attention to Torontoist, David, you're not going to get the good kind.
What was repeated in the Sun article was hardly thievery of opinion, creation, conjecture or even anything but a base statement of facts. Thursday was a cryptogram. Thursday was a CRYPTOGRAM. I think those words we are arguing about (WORDS because they were not ideas or concepts, they were stringing along words such as; Persepolis is playing at the Varsity) can easily be turned over as common knowledge, which don't require citation.
There's a certain grain of salt you have to take when you publish ANYTHING, web or otherwise and if you're publicly condemning somebody for this, are you willing to open up the archives and take an honest look at Torontoists history of living up to the expectations you JUST created for it?
Because I could probably find at least a handful just from the past week.
I would love to see and/or participate in that... especially now that Topping has decided to reference his own poor judgment in the just published Populist post...
ElleDriver: I don't see anything in David's post that appears inflammatory. No matter how hard you want to spin it, the same words that appeared in a Torontoist post later appeared in a Sun article. Just because it's been pointed out in the very same place the words originated from is no reason why to hold the story just to give Jenny Yuen the benefit of doubt. It's her name at the top of that article, right? Until she decides to publicly comment, then we have to assume she plagiarized. And if that's incorrect, David has indicated that he'll offer due recourse.
But should David be dragged on the coals for this post? Absolutely not - I'd be pretty pissed off if my intellectual property was stolen just so some cub reporter could earn a $100-200 pay check (whereas Torontoist posts get about $5-10).
And yes, I read Gawker as well as the majority of Web sites in their network. I enjoy them (with the exception of Gizmodo) for their writing and the risks they take, Tom Cruise video or not.
I think a lot of people are confusing the message with the messenger. Whatever you think of David's post, it's disingenuous to claim that two people writing about the same facts would do so in exactly the same way without one copying the other. Facts themselves cannot be copyrighted or plagiarized, but the expression of those facts certainly can be.
As for the comment that the passage consisted of nothing more than words, that's pretty much all that language is. Plagiarism isn't about having the same idea or knowing the same facts as someone else, it's about using someone else's exact words as if you wrote them.
I am more surprised at the reply than the original article. Very unprofessional.
Read this week's Rump Shaker:
http://torontoist.com/2008/01/the_rump_shaker_4.php
And this weeks Club listings on the NOW website:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/music/music_clubs1.cfm
They all look pretty goddamn similar to me... call the cops...
lol whoops wrong NOW link:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/music/music_dance1.cfm
Andrewryanfox: I don't think you understand what plagiarism is. Some of the information in the Rump Shaker and NOW listings may be the same, but they are written entirely differently. Take, for example, the listing for Circa on Saturday:
NOW: circa Traffic Tribal, house, electro w/ Doman, Pettigrew, Addy, Neno, Jedi, Kenny Glasgow, Teeloo's Kitchen, Jonny White.
Rump Shaker:
Now if you tell me that each of the promoters of each of those events contacts Torontoist as part of their listing process, then this is a moot point. But if Torontoist writes the Rump Shaker column by reading Eye or NOW to find out what's going on in the city without attributing, then by your definition that's plagiarism... I'm not sure how Torontoist works in this manner... I know when I wrote the TV column a couple years ago I wrote all of my own comments on shows that were coming on but I never attributed finding out the times and program titles to my Rogers Digital Cable guide. So I guess I plagiarized too...
No, don't call the cops.
David should post a "we-know-you're-reading-this-because-all-the-mainstream -media-take-ideas-from-us" public plea for NOW magazine to contact david@torontoist.com to explain, so he can then absolve them of any wrong doing later. Oh, and then put it high up the list in the Populist post regardless of whether or not it gets any comments or recommends. I joke, of course.
;) winkies
Andrewryanfox: I don't think you understand what plagiarism is. Some of the information in the Rump Shaker and NOW listings may be the same, but they are written entirely differently. Take, for example, the listing for Circa on Saturday:
NOW:
Rump Shaker:
What you've actually pointed out is a perfect example of the same facts (or ideas, or "words," if you will) being expressed in two different ways. Yes, they're both just lists of words and facts, but one is not copied and pasted from the other.
Stick to playing bass, Andrew, and not trying to make a point.
No I don't think YOU understand. Plagiarism is defined as:
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
Well, I know for a fact that Eye and NOW don't get their club listings by reading the What's On section of the Toronto Star. They have promoters and clubs email them their listings for the week. If Torontoist does this too, then for sure it's not plagiarism, but if Rump Shaker is written by reading club listings in other papers and reprinting them, whether worded identically or closely, then it is absolutely plagiarism because it's not attributed.
Andrewryanfox's definition of plagiarism, which supposedly proves that I don't understand what plagiarism is:
My original definition:
Hmm, your definition sounds pretty much like what I said, but worded a little differently. I think I understand it pretty well after all. Thanks for backing me up.
Luckily, NOW and Eye don't see it that way, because there are only so many ways you can print FACTS. It's an accepted practice, carried on by this very publication. So it's a little hypocritical to accuse Jenny of plagiarism when you do the exact same thing, regardless of whether you move the club name to AFTER the act instead of before it.
(BTW, for anyone who may be confused, my comment #69 was an accidental posting of an unfinished comment. I finished my thought and reposted as #72.)
Now do you see what I'm getting at? The fundamental difference, and it is fundamental, between your definition and the one I cribbed from dictionary.com (unattributed the first time around, so I guess I plagiarized again), is that it doesn't say language and/or thoughts, it says LANGUAGE AND THOUGHTS, it is FUNDAMENTALLY rooted in the stealing of ideas, not just reciting or repeating facts.
This is getting a little off point anyway. Whether it was plagiarism or not is for Torontoist, the Sun and Jenny to work out among themselves. I don't personally believe it is, some do, whatever. I still think that the printing of the story before doing due diligence as a member of the media (and yes, blog or not, there are still certain responsibilities one should have when throwing other people's names around in a public forum in a negative way) by getting the other side of the story before going public and giving the accused a chance to defend herself at the time of the accusation was a far worse thing to do, ethically, morally and professionally, then the recitation of some facts.
I should clarify my previous comment, and this article as a whole. My last comment was written in a hurry and not as well thought-out as something as serious as this requires. I was being reactionary and defensive, not measured.
I do not regret publishing an article making the accusation that my article was plagiarized from; it is indisputable that it was. The words in my article were mine––not Posterchild's, not anyone else's. My words––my exact words in the exact order I wrote them––were then reprinted on the third page of The Sun credited to someone else. Plagiarism is a serious, serious offense: students are thrown out of universities for it (deservedly); writers and journalists are fired for it (deservedly).
What I do regret, though, is implicating Jenny Yuen as responsible for that act of plagiarism before it is conclusively proven that that is the case. It is absolutely her article, but that does not mean that the plagiarism in her article is neccesarily by her hand. It was entirely unfair of me to name her before I was completely sure that she was responsible. The Sun is, until I know more, the only entity I can fairly say is responsible for the plagiarism. I deeply, deeply, deeply regret the damage this might cause Jenny if she is not responsible for the plagiarism. It was a presumption that I should not have made, and I made it because it was a simple and easy one to make––in an article attributed to Jenny, I was plagiarized.
I do not intend to write about this any more (in the comments here or as another article) until I've spoken to everyone involved. If Jenny did not plagiarize my article, and that paragraph was the work of some copy editor or editor or someone else at the The Sun, I will absolutely issue a full apology to Jenny in a separate article, which I will then link to at the foot of this post to erase any doubts about her culpability. I absolutely understand how serious my accusation was––until I know more, it should not have been directed at her. I have enough evidence to demonstrate that I was stolen from. I do not, however, yet have enough evidence to prove that Jenny was conclusively the person who stole.
I'll immediately append a link to this comment in the article above.
I think a more fitting response would be to remove this post completely until anything is conclusively proven. If you really regret implicating her, then it seems since it's within your power to take this garbage down you ought to do it.
Torontoist readers usually offer up more civilized commentary, so regardless of the issue at hand I don't see why people on either side of the fence feel the need to resort to irrelevant, personal attacks.
Regarding what constitutes plagiarism, Val, the difference between your definition and Andrew's is the "someone else's exact words" part. Going by your's, The Sun article could've written this:
Monday offered up a subway and streetcar colouring book; Advice for flirting on the subway came Tuesday; Wednesday's fare was a graffiti tour across the 510 Spadina streetcar line; a maze, connect-the-dots, cryptogram and some riddles were in Thursday's; and the Friday edition claimed that the whole TTC is now free.
and it would've been fine. However, if you consider the actual Sun article plagiarism then so is this version. All I did was copy and paste Topping's article and rephrase the sentences. Students get busted all the time for doing the same thing.
I think this whole thing hinges on whether or not the information copied can be deemed common knowledge. In all fairness, any commuter that week could give you the exact same recollection of events. Additionally, the list follows a basic pattern that it wouldn't be hard to imagine someone employing on their own. Had the style been more varied (like in the version I wrote) it would be much more clear that it was a case of copy & paste.
strangehold: Gawker has tanked horribly since Denton took over again, for many different reasons - it's a pretty universal sentiment held by long-time readers. But anyhow, that's beside the point.
I'm not spinning anything. Was it plagiarism? Maybe. But I'm choosing to hold judgement before getting all facts from everybody. My problem - and a lot of other people's problem - was with the way the story was handled. And as you can now see from David's second - and more measured - response is that he regrets implicating Jenny in the initial post, and rightly so.
And it's pretty foolish of you to equate Jenny's non-response so far as an indication of guilt - perhaps she's been advised by her editors to not comment publicly on this yet. Or perhaps she's choosing to draft a tempered response/explanation for all this, rather than write a knee-jerk response on a comment board.
All of you outraged by this article are all welcome to stop reading.
This is possibly my favourite comment on this thread.
David, before you finish entertaining all of us with this trainwreck, please share how you came to determine that this "event" was the most exciting thing that could happen to a journalist.
And what you feel your qualifications are to be an arbiter of media ethics.
We could all use a laugh.
I am stunned by the number of comments regarding plagiarism. It has become worse since the advent of the Internet, and spawned something I like to call "unintentional plagiarism." I'll address that in a moment.
Old-timers will no doubt remember the tragic tale of Ken Adachi, the Toronto Star's brilliant literary critic. Accused of plagiarism more than once, Mr. Adachi took the most extreme route possible, killing himself in 1989. In the 1980's, there was also the case of Washington Post reporter Janet Cooke, who created the composite of "Jimmy" for her story on children and heroin addiction.
Historically, let's not forget authors like Herman Melville of Moby Dick fame. He did not merely copy a few passages for his book, but an entire CHAPTER on whaling (which never really fit in with the rest of his epic tale). And Shakespeare remains the most ripped-off writer in history.
"Plagiarism" in not limited to writing. The most absurd case, in my opinion, was when CCR's John Fogerty was accused of "self-plagiarism" by Fantasy Records head Saul Zanetz!
Younger readers will be familiar with newspaper reporters Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair, who did not just plagiarise stories, but made them up in their entirety! And their punishment? Book and movie deals. Let's not even talk about the academic world, where it is possible to download entire term papers and essays free of charge, and pass them off as the product of one's own mind and effort.
As a former Maclean's staffer, I caught many passages cribbed from Internet sources BEFORE they went to print -- that was part of my job. In almost all cases, I believed this "plagiarism" to be unintentional, the product of pushing out too many stories in too little time.
I am not defending plagiarism by any means. I have had passages from stories I've written ripped-off a number of times, and still consider it a compliment. I suggest Torontoist consider Ms. Yuen's story in the same vein, and be flattered that people are paying attention to your work. If there are to be any repercussions againt Ms. Yurn from this, that is entirely at the discretion of her employer, not Torontoist.
UPDATE: The blog, "Toronto Sun Family: 1971-2008," which writes about past and present employees of the Toronto tabloid, has a large post about the plagiarism accusation at http://torontosunfamily.blogspot.com/
Either way, it seems a bit cruel to spend all this time arguing over something so petty.
Mind you, Skippy, 88 comments! If hits are the currency, this drag-down mud-wrestling is great stuff for Gothamist LLC, especially at a time when they're hiring new sales reps in Toronto[ist]. It's a long tradition.
From the Sun's blog:
Those are fighting words.I don't care if it's Shakespeare or Perez Hilton; you don't just randomly duplicate 30 consecutive words by accident.
If you are doing it randomly, even 30 letters is a stretch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Maybe it's because I'm not a journalist or journalist wannabe, (and for the record I'd rather get a paper cut than read the Sun or defend its integrity), but I really don't get why this is such a big deal when you look at what was (allegedly) copied.
There are no fancy turns of phrase, signature styles, striking word combinations, convoluted structure, florid descriptions, or anything else of artistic merit being (allegedly) duplicated without attribution. The informational content is also not the product of some hard-earned original research from an exclusive source, or an attributed quote from same.
I'm not saying (alleged) plagiarism is acceptable, but even if it was clearly Ms Yuen's doing, is that paragraph really worth crucifying her over?
Adam: What?! Perez would never plagiarize li'l ol' Torontoist, surely!
this entire thread should be taken down. Not because of the claims of plagiarism (which I think are legit, since it is obvious that the Sun copied and pasted from Torontoist. This should really be considered fact at this point. Whether you define that as "plagiarism" or something else, it happened).
But Jenny's name is all over this comment thread and it could have been the work of a copy editor which, I think lots of non-media people wouldn't know about (including me). I think many people would not have attacked her personally on here or used her name in the harsh words they have for who did this (like myself).
I just thought that if you have your name, and your name only on the by-line that it was YOUR work. I don't think that's a silly assumption but apparently that is not the case!
Someone is to blame, but it might not be her. The Sun needs to look into this and discipline the proper person for their laziness. I wouldn't really deem this as serious PLAGIARISM as it was just a list of information that was copied, not the editorial or the entire article (but it's a safe bet that since they were copying the list that they got the idea for the story from Torontoist too, but that kind of thing happens between media outlets all the time). But it wasn't right to do so.
Arguments to remove this posting and the associated comments miss something crucial: once posted on the internet, things tend to stay on the internet. I think the debate contained within the comments provides more nuance and mitigates the allegation more than simply removing it would do.
"is that paragraph really worth crucifying her over?"
Sun stole entire posts AND a photo from Spacing, with attribution, and without payment, until the writers spoke up. Same kind of thing happened at the Post.
They could have sued for millions btw but settled for hundreds.
All we see here is sad attempt by Topping to think he's worthy of same.
Hey, you know what would been the best way of dealing with this? The reporter shouldn't have cut and pasted the text.
We can hem and haw all we want about how serious the 30 words should be and how much slack we should give the reporter, but the meat of the matter is that those words were already written somewhere else.
Look, I work in the media and have staffed at the Globe, the Post and a few regional dailies - had I done the same thing and gotten caught, I'd have been fired. It doesn't matter if its 1,200 or 30 words - plagiarism is plagiarism. It's something that all journalists take (or should take) very seriously and if we find out that the reporter/copy editor/layout editor is at fault, then I have no sympathy to what kind of punishment levied upon them. You should have known better.
o.k...this is my take on what happened...we are in the 21st century...aka: the century of CUT and PASTE...how many times have we done it!!! someone probably just sent an e-mail with this article to the said reporter...or someone got an e-mail and forwarded it to the reporter as a tip...or even the author of the flyer sent the article as a form of press release....it's pretty obvious ms. youen was not aware she was copying torontoist, i mean who would plagiarize a list??? is the weatherman from ctv copying the weatherman from city tv when he says sunday: clowdy, monday: rainy....give me a break
Another cogent argument from rapi. Bravo. (rollseyes)
strangehold - You know what would be the best way for a mature person to react to this? Waiting for the whole story before spreading potentially libellous accusations.
There's no evidence yet that Yuen is at fault or that it was intentional, so before you strap her to the ducking stool, wait for the Sun and/or Yuen to address what happened. It's the most basic professional courtesy you could extend.
Being angry doesn't mean the target of your bile is guilty.
Three years ago I discovered a bug in a piece of design software I use that caused the last Redo to be Undone upon saving the file a certain way. While it only resulted in the word "footwear" becoming "footware", it was nonetheless embarrassing for everyone involved once it ended up in 20-inch high letters on the side of a store, and pointed out by the client. The switch was nobody's fault though, and something easily missed when you're at the deadline. Fortunately I and the copywriter were given the benefit of the doubt, and I eventually found documentation supporting my story that it was the software at fault and not incompetence/intentional/maliciousness.
Fine, I'll wait. So, hurry up Sun Media. What happened?
sorry...did i say something stupid????
That is a good question, strangehold. How long is a reasonable amount of time to respond, especially in this era?
How many words do you have to string together in the exact same order before it's plagiarism? 10? 20? 33? Does it matter what the subject matter is? Whether the original author is paid? Whether the plagiarist is paid?
TurnItIn.com looks for seven consecutive words that match.
Although in a pretty hilarious and highly-publicized incident, an anti-turnitin.com protester was able to find seven consecutive words in the CEO's speech at an early adopter university that matched a passage from an obscure book.
The CEO claimed the match was purely a coincidence, of course.
I have to say that, as a journalist who has been plagiarized himself once or twice, and as a personal friend of the Sun writer in question, you guys are still blowing this way out of proportion.
Unless I'm missing something, David is not directly calling the Sun writer a "plagiarist" or saying that it was "intentional." He's only said that the newspaper did so, which leaves open the possibility of a higher-level error. There's not much risk of libel being committed here.
He's pointed out the facts (that there is an identical paragraph in a recent Sun article), called out the writer for a response (who is also a blogger, and in this informal, public, ivory tower-free era of journalism is pretty much fair game), proceeded to eat a lot of shit from you easily outraged types and then printed a gigantic caveat/correction at the bottom of the piece.
Is the journalist's credibility dropping like Apple stock after its latest keynote for every hour that this article remains up? No. That is superstitious thinking. It doesn't really work that way.
This is going to blow over very quickly, it will be resolved, it will be a tiny blip in the careers of all those involved, so in the meantime there's no danger in allowing us to have a rational discussion over it. I'm sick of these demands for 1984-style "memory hole" destruction of the original piece, as if nobody could ever reproduce it...as if it weren't already indexed by web crawlers (look up "Torontoist" and "plagiarism" in Google).
Obviously the Sun and its lawyers are considering a proper response to this fiasco. The problem with you New Media types is you have no patience. Relax.
"strangehold - You know what would be the best way for a mature person to react to this? Waiting for the whole story before spreading potentially libellous accusations."
Well said.
I think posting this claim before even SPEAKING/Emailing/txting/geez even sending a messenger pigeon to anyone about the whole story of what happened from both sides is ludicrous and jumping the gun.
Now this post will end up with a bunch of edits, which (to me at least) looks much worse than if the original poster would have waited, researched and compiled the WHOLE story and then posted from both sides, mmmm journalism.
I understand you believe in plagiarism, we all do! But don't you think this WHOLE thing was a little pre-empted even with the edits so far?
You just have to love the instant gratification of the internet these days...
There's mine.
The Sun has replied by publishing an official correction.
And when you type "Jenny Yuen Sun" in Google, you get plagiarism as the first hit.
If that was the result you were going for then I guess you've succeeded, David.
An article about this issue's resolution is forthcoming.
Hopefully the Sun will publish it and put you on the cover!
If Jenny Yuen did it (which the correction did not state so we don't know if it was her, but if it wasn't she might want to say something by now) then she deserves the google hits.
The Sun has issued an apology, and Torontoist has responded to that apology. We consider the matter now closed.
I sure as hell don't. It is my mission in life to discredit you as a purveyor of any sort of media in this city, and to expose you for the cheap, petty, attention-seeking douchebag that you are. I'll do it on here, and I'll do it out in the real world. You make me really, truly sick. Frankly I don't know how cowardly, small-minded people like yourself sleep at night. The self-loathing would drive me insane. Deep down inside you somewhere I hope there's a shred of dignity, of empathy, of the ability to feel even the tiniest bit of remorse for risking someone's career, something worked towards over many years, something that could be someone's dream, just so you could bluster about how your scribblings were supposedly cribbed by someone with more talent and humanity in her fingernail than you could ever aspire to possess, and maybe a few more people would read your crap. I hope it eats you up. You intentionally set out to hurt someone for something that, even if true, would not have hurt you in the least. You're a snake, a weasel, a worm. You're a hyena, scavenging for scraps and laughing while you do it. You suck.
Physician, heal thyself.
What can be done to make sure this post turns up at the top of every Google search for David Topping?
You might also want submit it to Yahoo, under the category "Bloggers/Topping, David/Hysterical, Unhinged, Completely Undeserved Comments About."
It's only plagiarism if Jane Pitfield does it!
Deep down inside you somewhere I hope there's a shred of dignity, of empathy, of the ability to feel even the tiniest bit of remorse for risking someone's career, something worked towards over many years, something that could be someone's dream
That's pretty rich, considering you preceeded that statement with:
It is my mission in life to discredit you as a purveyor of any sort of media in this city, and to expose you for the cheap, petty, attention-seeking douchebag that you are.
So if it's your friend, it's wrong to try and ruin their career, but everyone else is fair game?
Also, nobody risked Jenny's career but her. As other people have pointed out, she did it herself when she stole that paragraph. You think it doesn't matter because it's one little paragraph, but it does. I've fired writers for less. I had to fire a writer for stealing one sentence of about 10 words. Did I ruin his career? No. Did the person who wrote me alerting me to the fact that it was stole ruin his career? No.
She must have been a great lay to get that strong defence of her honour. ;-)
It works!
unhinged "david topping" brings up this thread.
lol
Is this plagiarism? Endorsed by Torontoist?
http://www.eturbonews.com/1034/miss-toronto-tourism-not-welcoming-wiccans
How about this?
http://www.torontoiam.com/sectors/directory/torontoist/70237
(no photo credit there either, even though they're hosting it)
quest:
Torontoist does not allow content to be republished in full, without permission, on news aggregators or other sites, including the eTurboNews one you linked.
As for the second link, which is an aggregator site, we do allow a fair use short summary or 75-word introductory paragraph with an explicit link back to the original article on Torontoist.
So is eturbonews going to get a public flagellation for stealing your content (all 600+ words copied verbatim)?
Is Torontoiam going to get eaten alive for hosting your images without byline credit to the copyright holders (and essentially stealing your pageviews by syndicating everything you post and offering a place for their readers to comment, social network bookmark, and email formmail ON THEIR DOMAIN)?
If you guys are so protective over a 30-word snippet that violated your intellectual property rights, shouldn't you be going after fish that stink way more?
eTurboNews has already been contacted, as we do with all other sites that aggregate our content in full. We continually deal with this problem, which involves the odd and erroneous viewpoint that copyright seems to apply differently to blogs.
Automatically aggregating and republishing our content in full isn't allowed. There are thousands of aggregator sites out there that do this—which, though just as illegal, isn't quite the same thing as publishing someone else's words under your own byline in a newspaper and crediting them as your own. We have dealt with this in the past and will continue to go after it when it happens, but thanks for your concern.