Posted on 08/11/2016 10:27:03 PM PDT by Silly
Below is the verbatim e-mail I sent to Crown Forum’s publicity office* at Random House on Wednesday, August 10, 2016:
SUBJECT: Likely plagiarism by Crown author in form of “refactoring”
To the publisher of “Barons of the Beltway: Inside the Princely World of Our Washington Elite—and How to Overthrow Them”
Dear Sir or Madam:
In case you have not yet been alerted, serious allegations of plagiarism — in the form of the refactoring of others’ work without citations, in lieu of original work of her own — are being made on the Internet about the Michelle Fields book referenced above, which Crown Forum published and continues to market.
As a writer myself, I find this extremely offensive, as I know how difficult and laborious it is to originate good work, and even harder to get it published. When word of this gets out to your other authors, and it will, I can assure you they will not take this lightly. If true, as Crown Forum authors, their work and reputations will be diminished by their association with a publisher of plagiarism. If it is true, I hope Crown Forum will recall the book immediately and refund all purchases, regardless of how few copies have been sold.
To my best knowledge, this discovery was made, and news of it first published, by attorney Travis Miller, attorney Mike Cernovich of DangerandPlay.com, and Charles C. Johnson, CEO of WeSearchr.com, two of whom are copied on this e-mail.
The evidence given of this alleged fraud (see links below) include numerous samples of Fields’ work side-by-side with the work of others.
As you will see, the samples do not show lengthy, wholesale “word for word” copying, but rather highly suspicious re-writing of the samples that strongly suggest:
Continued at the link.
So, what words did she copy?
FTA: As you will see, the samples do not show lengthy, wholesale “word for word” copying, but rather highly suspicious re-writing of the samples that strongly suggest:
Fields did not originate the ideas in her passages;
Fields is not conversant in the subjects she is writing about;
Fields found passages written by others with the same ideas and often identical phrasing; and
Fields merely re-factored these passages by restating others’ phrases using different words, but not enough to cover her tracks and hide her plagiarism;
Fields passed off the work as her own, without credit to others.
I myself found such a passage on my first attempt. At Amazon.com, I found her book, clicked on “Look Inside” and “Surprise Me” to find random pages. I Googled phases from the first paragraph I found and discovered a paragraph in a Wikipedia article that was very similar, and included several of the same ideas and phrases in the same short passage.
chart with some examples.... they say they have only sampled a few pages of her work and already found all this:
http://6889-presscdn-0-68.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Fields-Chart.pdf
Essentially, Fields closely summarizes and paraphrases her sources, without credit.
It’s not what most people think of as “plagiarism” since it does not copy passages verbatim, but Fields takes the work of other writers and r4e-writes it as her own text without attributing the sources of the ideas, facts, structure, and examples.
I don’t know how the publishing world looks at this “refactoring” (not a term I was familiar with in this context), but in the examples given it does seem clear that Fields simply re-wrote the work of others without credit.
ahhhh good old Michelle.....still not a journalist
Exposed again !
It’s weird that anyone would think the mere sending of an email constitutes a newsworthy item, and downright bizarre that a second person would agree to the point of republishing it here.
I am not buying this as plagiarism. While I don’t like Fields, I do not see the issue with the writhing.
I found it interesting, others did as well. Maybe we all should run our posts through the thought-o-mator before posting.
if you do two clicks on the pic of the caparison chart becomes readable. it appears to be embedded in cerno... site.
I am not buying this as plagiarism. While I don’t like Fields, I do not see the issue with the writhing.>>> i don’t think you can copy someone else’s work without some reference.
If you were a writer, I promise you, you would think this is plagiarism. Writing and publishing a book under your name means original material, original ideas, written in original ways, with tons and tons of hard work.
Her book isn’t writing, it’s typing.
> Maybe we all should run our posts through the thought-o-mator before posting.
Totally second the motion. Passed by acclamation!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.