Comments on: Wegman and Rapp on proxies: A divergence problem, part 2

By: John Mashey

John Mashey — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 06:50:15 +0000

Could you explain to us why you think you know anything about plagiarism in the real world? This appears to be a case of Dunning-Kruger, but perhaps I'm missing something. You strongly disagree with Expersts, and of course SSWR cited various standard discussions of plagiarism. Regarding statistical expertise: I'm sure Wegman has more expertise than I, but that doesn't help much if someone breaks ethical guidelines by massive cherry-picking. SSWR had a 50% cherry-pick, DC has now shown a 1% case, as well as serious other problems with the statistics. I claimed "The WR contains no actual new statistical analysis of MBH itself, just reworks of MM material." and I think I was right, although DC is showing their work was even worse than I thought.

By: Deep Climate

Deep Climate — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:27:33 +0000

Check the date of this post. There are reasons why this post only generated two comments at the time.

a) There were fewer readers at Deep Climate then than there are now.
b) It was written in the slow post-New Year period
c) There was another post immediately following the next day, diverting attention.

By: Bo E

Bo E — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:40:24 +0000

Notes from a b y-stander…
Every thing here looks quite clear…
And yet all related matters are so cardinal to their nature, considering that the New World Political Order is at stake.
So I am really worried here – Why is it that just only a few commeters here have the urge to comment these findings.
Is the question dead? – I certainly would not think that!

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 04:52:53 +0000

So you are backing Mashey’s statistical expertise against Wegman’s.

If Wegman has done a statistical analysis of his work vs. those pieces he’s been accused of plagiarizing, it’s news to me.

Linky? Literature cite?

By: Rattus Norvegicus

Rattus Norvegicus — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 04:47:34 +0000

Peter,

Mashey was quoting one of Wegman’s “reviewers” (Cressi) who said that he should do the correct analysis to see if it made any difference. Cressi’s expertise, not Mashey’s.

You might want to read before you ridicule.

By: Peter Wilson

Peter Wilson — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:11:12 +0000

Marco

So you are backing Mashey’s statistical expertise against Wegman’s.

RAOFLMAO!!!

By: Marco

Marco — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 05:03:01 +0000

You might want to read Mashey’s report, where you will note one of the ‘reviewers’ Wegman supposedly used proposing Wegman do the analysis with the proper PCA methodology. He didn’t. You may also want to read the conclusion of a social network expert: the methodology of Wegman et al does not allow the conclusion they draw (oooops! Right method, wrong conclusion!).

Note also that the section citing Bradley is not attributed to Bradley, but does contain references to various others. In other words, the *correct* reference is *deliberately* hidden. Quite a trick to hide something…

By: Peter Wilson

Peter Wilson — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 23:14:46 +0000

I’m not sure I understand what the complaint is here. This was a report to congress, not a book or journal article, and there was no attempt to pass Bradleys material off as his own. Furthermore, this section was purely background on the debate, and entirely unrelated to the headline conclusions of the report.

This is either a total beat up, or a mountain out of a molehill. Either way, Wegman’s conclusions regarding Mann’s work remain entirely unchallenged

By: Wegman report update, part 2: GMU dissertation review | Deep Climate

Wegman report update, part 2: GMU dissertation review | Deep Climate — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 02:02:35 +0000

[...] is based on unattributed material from Wikipedia and two widely used text books. Thus, as in the case of Donald Rapp, there appears to be serial propagation of unattributed, “striking similar” material. [...]

By: TrueSceptic

TrueSceptic — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:34:09 +0000

Given the whole MBH/MM/Wegman controversy, it would be bizarre if he's not. After all, he is the B in MBH. [DC: Yes, that's part of what bothered me so much in the first place - using and distorting an author's work as part of an attack on that very same author is despicable. On the other hand, if Bradley didn't read the Background 2.1 section in Wegman closely, he might not realize how badly his work had been distorted.]