欢迎! 登陆 注册

高级搜索

Fang Zhouzi Clarifies That He Didn’t Commit Plagiarism in his Works (893 查看)

May 08, 2015 07:18PM
Appendix: Fang Zhouzi Clarifies That He Didn’t Commit Plagiarism in his Works

Background: In the early February of 2012, while Fang was desperately trying to dig up a “gigantic hole” to bury Mr. Han Han and his supporters altogether, he himself was on the verge of falling into an even larger hole dug up by the Fangologists in the previous years. Specifically, by that time, Fang’s fraudulent, scandalous, shameful, and dirty personal history, mainly his stealing of other people’s literary, historical, scientific, and artistic works, and his vicious, malicious, and evil revenges on his personal and political enemies in the name of fraud fighting, had been not only exposed all over the internet, but also reported by the traditional news media in China. Fang initially tried to ignore the overwhelming negative coverage by using his “last strategy,” playing dumb and pretending to be dead. However, after realizing that the situation was getting out of control, Fang finally agreed to make a video response on tudou.com, a website which was promoting Fang at the time as The Science Guard and The Fraud Fighter in China. The website released the 20-minute video clip on Feb. 7, 2012, under the title of【Exclusive Interview】Fang Zhouzi Clarifies That He Didn’t Commit Plagiarism in his Works. It is arguably the most comprehensive and the lengthiest “clarification” of his scandals by Fang so far.

However, except for posting the link to the video on his Weibo once, Fang has never mentioned, introduced, or promoted his video “clarification,” not a single time; and even in the occasions he defended himself by saying repeatedly that he had clarified these scandals many times before, he won’t mention or refer the video. Of course, Fang won’t transcribe his oral response into text and post it online or publish in a book for other people to read. As a result, Fang’s video “clarification” is relatively unknown. To make the “clarification” more available to the people who want to know the John Maddox Prize winner and the world-famous Fraudulent Fraud Fighter, especially to those people who don’t know Chinese, I take the liberty of transcribing the entire content of the video response, and translating the transcript into English. Needless to say, I am the person who is solely responsible for the accuracy of both the Chinese transcript and English translation. The video’s address is here.

1. The English Translation

QUESTION 1


Yi Tian revealed on her Weibo that some of your works are allegedly plagiarisms of other people’s academic results, please explain. (0’00”)



Fang’s answer: This was actually hyped several months ago, and whenever I criticize a certain person, the supporters of that person would check the old accounting books. They say my paper plagiarized a professor at my alma mater Michigan State University, and then they say that the professor wrote an open letter to expose something about me, etc. First of all, I have to say that it is not a paper; rather, it is an internet post I wrote in 1995 when I was debating on a Chinese network in the United States on the issues about pseudoscience, so it is a post. Because when we were debating these questions about pseudoscience, which involved the issue of how to define science, exactly what is science, therefore I wrote an internet article about what is science, in which I used the definition of science in an essay written by a professor at my alma mater, the Michigan State University in the U. S., his name is Root-Bernstein. His summary contains four points, and I felt the summary is not bad, and in fact the four points he summarized are not the professor’s own unique viewpoints, rather, they are the consensus of science community. So, I cited the four points in my internet article. At that time, because it is a post on the internet, I didn’t give the citation, saying only that the four points are the consensus opinion on what is science, and I posted it.

In 1999, when I was assembling some of my internet posts into a book, entitled Fangzhou Online, in which I used the internet post What Is Science. At that time, I made a modification, because it was going to be published in a book, it shouldn’t be as causal as on the internet. Therefore, I added a sentence to give the citation, i. e. ‘According to American scholar Root-Bernstein, the science community believes that science should meet the definition in four aspects,’ etc. In other words, when the article was formally published, its source was clearly acknowledged.

Later, in 2007, I published another book entitled Criticizing TCM, in which I used the definition of science again, and I also used the four-point definition of science. At that time, I noted further that the definition was cited from Root-Bernstein, I even noted in which one of his articles. Those people against me were based on the citation to find the article, and then they said, see, he didn’t give the citation in 1995, so he plagiarized the article by a professor at his alma mater, they even said that he was my advisor, in fact I didn’t know him at all. And then, they filed complaints, all the way to the administration of the Michigan State University.

The administration of the Michigan State University, after receiving the complaints at the end of 2010, investigated the matter, and their conclusion is, first, those people who filed the complaints didn’t provide solid evidence to substantiate their allegation; second, my article, What Is Science, was an article posted on the internet, unrelated to my coursework, and it was not a paper, therefore they decided not to accept the complaint, i. e. rejected them. The few people who filed the complaint, actually all of them are Xiao Chuanguo’s supporters, appealed to the higher level of my alma mater, which has a committee, and the committee rejected them also. So, the case was actually closed like that.

At that time, there were reports on the case in China. In last March, one or two newspapers reported the case, among them was Legal Weekly which even created a rumor, saying that the administration of my alma mater had convicted me of plagiarism, which is purely a rumor. I am still holding the conclusion given to me by my alma mater. So, I decided to sue Legal Weekly at the time.

Then in August, the August of the last year, those Xiao Chuanguo’s supporters somehow found Root-Bernstein, and then this Root-Bernstein wrote a letter, blaming me for using his article without attribution, and asking for an apology. And then he said what I did was plagiarism, something like that, and discussed what constitutes plagiarism with me. So I wrote a letter to him to explain, firstly, that was a causal blog article, so when citing other people’s viewpoints it doesn’t need to be as strict as writing a paper or a formal essay; also, I didn’t say the four-point definition was invented by me myself, rather, I stated very clearly that it was the consensus of the science community. Therefore, I didn’t take other people’s things as my own, hence it is not plagiarism. Secondly, when I published the article in a book, I clearly gave the citation, and also explained that what I wrote was based on the definition by you Root-Bernstein, the citation and the explanation are equivalent to acknowledging you. Thirdly, when I was writing the internet article in 1995 as a student, because I wrote it causally and informally, so I didn’t attribute you, if you are unhappy about it, I’m willing to apologize for that. I basically wrote these points.

Then my real advisor, Zachary Burton, came out, he wrote a letter to this Root-Bernstein, telling him that he supported me. He thought that I had explained the matter clearly. However, this Root-Bernstein’s idea about plagiarism is not the same as other people’s. After reading my letter, he said that he could forgive me for not attributing him because I corrected it later, in 1999 when the article was published in a book, so he believe the problem is no longer important. However, he believes that it still constitutes plagiarism if I use his writing without his permission, even if I cited the source. This is relatively weird, because his opinion is very unique, it is a unique definition proposed by him only. Our so called plagiarism means using other people’s writing without noting or proper explaining the source. So, since I have already noted the source, it does not constitute plagiarism anymore even though I used his writing. But he believes that even with a citation, permission is still required. The viewpoint is against the academic norm of the academic community, because the community traditionally believes that as long as you give the citation, you no longer need to ask for permission in advance to use and cite other people’s writings, including writing papers. When writing a paper, we might cite dozens of papers, it is impossible to ask for permission individually, it is impossible, basically impossible. So, this Root-Bernstein has a definition of plagiarism which differs from the one the other people have. Even if in the case I might have cited excessively without his consent, since I have noted the source, it is not plagiarism anymore, at most it is an issue of copyright.

So, after his letter, I felt I didn’t have anything to talk about with him. At the time, I responded by saying that your definition of plagiarism differs from the one used by other people and the academic community, therefore it is unnecessary to continue the discussion. After that, he wrote several more letters, and I didn’t feel like to respond, because I later discovered that this person had supported pseudoscience, for example, he insists that aids virus is not the causing factor of aids disease, which is rather strong. So I thought that there was no way to continue the communication with such kind of person, and I stopped. Later, my advisor, my real advisor, Zachary Burton, stopped discussing the issue with him. In other words, the matter was hyped in August for one time already, hyped in the media for a while, and then it quieted down.

All of my communications with Root-Bernstein can be found in my blog, so what these people are doing right now is nothing but auditing the old account books, digging out the articles which I have already explained to hype the matter again, let the people who didn’t following the event at the time feel confused, even misled, thinking that I am indeed a suspect of plagiarism, is exaggerated by my advisor, or even saying that my papers are plagiarism, all these things are not consistent with the facts. I actually don’t want to focus my energy on this matter, because what we are facing right now is Han Han’s problem, not my problem. My problems have been already explained before, what they want to do is to divert people’s attention from Han Han to me by muddying the water. I initially didn’t want to talk about the matter too much, since tudou.com offered me this opportunity today, I explained it in more detail.


QUESTION 2


Please explain what constitutes academic plagiarism. In your works, there are the occasions in which you also cited other people’s opinions, do they constitute plagiarisms? (10’22”)



Fang’s answer: All the materials used by them are from the articles by two peoples, one is named Yi Ming, the other is Xun Zheng. These two people have written articles of more than several million characters, which could be converted into several thick books, to attack me.

One point they want to demonstrate is that all of my articles are plagiarisms, including my literary writings, such as poetry, which is more laughable; and also my science popularization articles. The way they want to reach this goal is like this: after I have written a science popularization article, in which a certain topic such as GM corn, etc., is involved, then they’ll find one or two similar articles, then they’ll say, oh, there are similar contents in your article, so your article was copied from the foreign article. This is very laughable, because what I write is science popularization articles, which are based on the viewpoints shared by the academic circle, plus other people’s research. Because the contents of my articles are not my own research, therefore, as long as there are articles with similar contents or topics, you will always be able to find similar contents, and then you say they are plagiarisms, this is very weird. You cannot say they are plagiarisms based on the articles containing the identical opinions or similar contents.

The plagiarism in science popularization articles is not the same as that in academic papers. What they have been doing is actually using the same requirements for academic papers to require science popularization articles. What required for an academic paper is the originality, the contents in the paper, unless specifically noted, must be your own opinions. If you use other people’s viewpoints, you have to give the citations, otherwise, they will be considered yours by other people, thus it constitutes plagiarism. However, science popularization articles are different. Everyone knows that a science popularization article introduces other people’s viewpoints, introduces the research results of the academic circle. Therefore, unless you state clearly that they are your own viewpoints, other people won’t consider them yours. So, it won’t cause misunderstanding even if citations are not given and the sources of your viewpoints are not noted in science popularization articles, hence, of course, there won’t be plagiarism.

Sure, there are plagiarisms in science popularization articles. The plagiarisms in science popularization articles refer to the plagiarism in wordings. For example, my science popularization articles have often been plagiarized, i. e. paragraphs of my articles are copied, verbatim copying, without modification, or with little modification, or even copying an entire article, which belong to literary plagiarism. That’s the definition of plagiarism in science popularization. I myself have never committed such plagiarism, I haven’t translated other people’s articles, or copied other people’s article. There is no such a thing.


QUESTION 3


On his Weibo, Sun Haifeng, the Vice Chairman of the Communications Department of the Shenzhen University, accused you of plagiarizing other people’s figures in your work Why Don’t Elephants Have Hairs, what’s your explanation of this? (13’32”)



Fang’s answer: Now, it has been reported by a newspaper, it is said reported by Qilu Evening News, and the new has spread on the internet rather widely, saying that in a book of mine, Why Don’t Elephants Have Hairs, published in 2012, there are academic papers which plagiarized other people’s figures, and the translation contained mistakes, low level mistakes. It is extremely laughable.

You have to know that Why Don’t Elephants Have Hairs is not a collection of academic papers, rather, it is a collection of science popularization articles, every article in the collection is science popularization writing. A science popularization article needs to introduce other people’s research results. The article mentioned by them is an introduction to a viewpoint in other people’s paper. When I was doing so, I used a figure in the paper; therefore, it was not a plagiarism. I didn’t say the figure was made by me, or the result was obtained by me, because everyone knows it is a science popularization article, and what being introduced must be other people’s things. According to the current custom of our publishing industry, it is not necessary to note the sources of other people’s illustrations, the illustrations in other people’s papers. Because everyone knows what you do is to use the figures in the other people’s paper to illustrate their opinions.

Sure, when I used the figure, I didn’t translate it, because I didn’t have software to write on it, what I did was giving the original figure to the publisher, and after that, the editors were afraid that the readers might not understand because it contains English, so they themselves translated the English into Chinese. They then sent the proof to me, and when I did the proofreading, I found some mistakes they made in their translation, because it involves the academic issues, with which they might not be familiar. However, there were a few particular mistakes I didn’t discover at that time, including the figure in Why Don’t Elephants Have Hairs. After a reader mentioned the problem to me, I clarified the matter on my Weibo at the time, and the mistake was corrected later when the book went to reprint. However, they are now hyping the issue again, it is actually a matter which I already explained more than a year ago.


QUESTION 4


What’s the matter about Xiao Chuanguo’s defamation case mentioned by Yi Tian, and the story about the reparation payment of 50 thousand yuan. (15’45”)



Fang’s answer: The matter concerning Xiao Chuanguo is like this: in 2005, Xiao Chuanguo sued me in a court in Wuhan, saying that I had damaged his reputation, and the court sentenced me to pay 30,000 Yuan fine. The sentence generated a huge public outcry, because the judgement was purely arbitrary. For example, at the time I was criticizing Xiao Chuanguo, he said that he had won an award by the American Urological Association, and then I checked the website of the Association, but didn’t find Xiao Chuanguo’s name on the list of the award winners in the past years, so I believed Xiao Chuanguo hadn’t win the award. However, the judgement by the Wuhan court is: Having not found Xiao Chuanguo’s name on the list of the winners in the past years doesn’t equal to the fact that Xiao Chuanguo didn’t win the award. So, it is extremely laughable.

When such a sentence was out, saying that I had violated Xiao Chuanguo’s right of reputation, and fining me 30,000 Yuan to compensate Xiao, it immediately caused a public outcry. Many internet friends wanted to donate money to me, so I said that I don’t accept donations from individuals. Later, some internet friends set up organizations something like a foundation, one in the U. S., one in China, accepting donations from the public to pay the fine for me.

At the time, I was appealing; therefore the issue of reparation didn’t exist. Then the court of second instance upheld the original judgement, only because the appeal was still in Wuhan, in the Intermediate Court of Wuhan, upholding the original judgement, which meant that I had to pay the money. So I thought, I won’t pay the money voluntarily, I’d wait for the court to send me a notification, only after that, I’d pay the money. I won’t pay the money voluntarily. However, that notification had never come, and that was in 2007, they didn’t send the notification to me, of course I won’t pay the money voluntarily.

Then, in the August of 2009, Xiao Chuanguo suddenly posted a message on the internet, saying that you Fang Zhouzi can run away one time, but you can’t escape forever. I have already got the money, 40 thousand Yuan, from your wife’s bank account. At the time, I thought, we thought, it was strange, how could he get money from my wife’s bank account, what relationship my wife has with me, right? Then we checked the account, sure enough, 40 thousand Yuan had been withdrawn from my wife’s bank account. So I asked the bank, and the bank said that the Wuhan court sent people to the bank with an executive judgement, so we had to give them the money. Also, my wife’s name was added in the judgement, so the money had to be given.

We immediately challenged the decision. First of all, it was a matter between me and Xiao Chuanguo, it had nothing to do with my wife, so why did you take away my wife’s money? Taking away 40 thousand Yuan; except for the 30 thousand reparation, there were interest and executive fees, etc., which added up to 40 thousand Yuan. Secondly, I and my wife had a prenuptial agreement, i. e. the money under her name is unrelated to me, and the money under my name is unrelated to her either. The agreement was actually made to prevent such a situation. In other words, the money in her bank account is not matrimonial property, it belonged to her. Also, we had never received the executive notice, it is not that we didn’t want to pay the money, it is that you had never executed the judgement, never sent the executive notification to us, I had never received it.

So we raised our objection. The objection could only be raised in the original court, and the original court of course rejected the objection. The court even told a lie, saying that they had sent me an executive notification, which I have never received. So I asked them when did you send the notification, where is the evidence for sending the notification? They had absolutely nothing. They then said that the money is a matrimonial property. The problem is, we had a prenuptial agreement at the time, which already stated that her money is not a matrimonial property. However, they rejected our objection. So we appealed to the Intermediate Court, where the case has been resting since then. The Intermediate Court won’t make a decision.

All in all, 40 thousand Yuan has already been taken away from us, and what has been taken away is my wife’s money. Therefore, that Yi Tian on the internet is spreading rumors by saying that I have 50 thousand Yuan unpaid reparation debt. First of all, it is not 50 thousand, the judgement was 30 thousand, and then 10 thousand more was taken away; secondly, saying that I have been acting shamelessly and refusing to pay the money, in fact that the money has already been taken away.


2. The Chinese Transcript


【独家专访】方舟子澄清自己著作并未抄袭


土豆娱乐快报


2012年2月7日


Q1:易天在微博上爆出你的一些著作涉嫌抄袭他人的学术成果,请做出解释。

方:这个实际上是好几个月前就已经炒过了,每一回,到我批评某一个人的时候,他的支持者就会把这些老账全都搬出来。他们说我论文抄袭我母校密歇根州立大学的一个教授,然后还说这个教授还写了公开信来揭露我什么什么的。这个首先我要说一下,那篇不是一个论文,是1995年我在美国的一个中文网络上面跟人争论关于伪科学问题的时候,贴的一个网帖,是一个帖子。因为大家在争论这些伪科学的问题,然后就涉及到你怎么样定义科学的问题,究竟什么是科学。所以我就写了一篇什么是科学这样的一篇网上的文章,里面就用到了我的母校美国密歇根州立大学的一个教授,叫鲁特伯恩斯坦,他写的一篇随笔里头关于科学的定义。他归纳了有四点,我觉得这归纳得还不错,实际上他归纳出来的那四点也不是这个教授本人的独特观点,而是科学界的一些共识。所以我在我那篇网文里头呢,就引用了这四点。当时,因为是网上的帖子,我也没有注明出处。只是说,这四点是是科学界对科学是什么的共识,然后就发出去了。那一直到1999年的时候,我当时要把一些网上的帖子综合起来出一本文集,叫《方舟在线》,其中引用了这篇网上的帖子,《科学是什么》。那时候我就做了修改,因为这是要收入书的嘛,就不能像在网上发表文章那样随便。所以呢,在修改的时候,我就补充了一句,就是里面加了一句出处,即‘根据美国学者路伯恩斯坦的归纳,科学界认为科学要符合四个方面的定义’,等等。所以,到正式出书的时候,已经注明了出处了。后来,到07年的时候,我出了一本书,叫做《批评中医》,这时候也用到了科学的定义,我也用了这四条,关于科学的定义这四条。这个时候,我更详细地注明了这个定义是用的路伯恩斯坦的,并且是他的哪一篇文章,都给注明了。那些反对我的人,就是根据我注明的这个出处,然后去把那篇文章找出来,然后就说,噢,我在95年那个时候没有注明出处,就剽窃了我的学校母校的一个教授,──甚至还说成是我的导师,其实我根本不认识那个教授──的文章,然后就去告,一直告到密歇根州立大学的校方去。密歇根州立大学校方在前年,就是10年,当时做了调查,在年底接到举报之后,做了调查,他们的结论就是,第一,那些举报的人,没有证据,没有提供确凿的证据,能够支持他们的观点;第二,我那篇《科学是什么》文章,是一篇贴在网上的文章,跟学业没有关系。那更不是什么论文,所以他们决定不受理这个指控,就把他们给驳回了。举报的那几个人,其实都是肖传国的支持者,他们又上诉,就到我的母校更高一层,它有一个委员会,那个委员会也把他们驳回了。所以这件事本来就这么结束了。当时国内也有报道。在去年三月份的时候,有一两家报纸也报道了这件事,其中还造谣,其中一家报纸叫《法治周末》,它造谣说,我的母校校方认定我剽窃,这纯粹就是造谣。我现在手上都有我的母校给我的结论。所以呢,我当时就决定起诉《法治周末》,这就是造谣。然后到八月份的时候,去年八月份的时候,这些肖传国的支持者,又不知道怎么样去找到了路伯恩斯坦,然后这个路伯恩斯坦就写了一封信,指责我当时用他的文章没有注明出处,然后需要我为此道歉。然后又说我是剽窃什么什么的,跟我讨论什么样是剽窃。所以我当时就给他写了一封信,我给他解释了一下,首先就是这是一篇随便写的博客的文章,所以呢,在引用别人观点的时候,不是像写论文或者写正规的文章那么严谨的,我也没有说对科学的这四点定义就是我本人提出来的,而已经很清楚地说这是科学界的共识。所以说,我并没有把别人的东西当成我自己的,不属于剽窃。其次,我后来在把这篇文章收入书的时候,已经清楚地注明了出处,也说明了我是根据你路伯恩斯坦的定义,给了你的出处了,已经说明了,相当于鸣谢你了。第三,我在九五年当学生的时候,写这篇网上文章的时候,因为当时写得比较随意,没有注明你的名字,如果你为此不高兴的话,我愿意为这个道歉。所以我大概说明了这几点。然后我真正的导师,夹克力波顿当时也出来,给这个路伯恩斯坦写了一封信,告诉他,他是支持我的,他认为我已经把这个问题都说清楚了。但路伯恩斯坦,他这个人,对剽窃的说法跟一般的人不符,他看到我的这封信以后,他说他可以原谅我当时没有注明他的名字,因为我后来已经改正了嘛,九九年收入文集的时候已经改正了,所以他认为这个问题就不重要了。但他认为说,我引用他的东西,即使注明了出处,但是没有经过他的同意,也算是剽窃。这个就比较奇怪。因为他这个是很独特的,对剽窃的一个独特的、他自己提出的定义。我们所谓抄袭或所谓剽窃,就是用到了别人的东西,而没有注明,恰当地说明出处。那么我既然说明了出处,虽然用到了他的东西,已经注明了出处,那就不属于剽窃了。但是他认为说,即使注明了出处,也必须经过他的同意才行。那这个跟学术界的规范,学术的规范,是相违背的,因为学术界的惯例都是认为,你用到别人的,引用别人的东西,只要做了说明,就不需要说事先去征得对方的同意,作者的同意。包括我们写论文也是。我们写一篇论文,可能用到几十篇论文,你不可能说一一地去征求对方的同意,是不可能的,基本上不可能的。所以,这个路伯恩斯坦他本人对剽窃的定义就跟别人是不一样的。即使是说,我引用过度的话,没有获得他的同意,但是注明了出处,那就不叫剽窃了,最多最多是涉嫌一个版权的问题。所以,他写了那封信之后,我就觉得和他没话可说了。我当时也回了一下,说你的关于剽窃的定义跟一般的人,跟学术界的不一样的,没有继续讨论的必要。他后来还写了好几封,我就懒得跟他再回了。因为我后来发现这个人还支持过伪科学的东西,比如他坚持认为说,艾滋病病毒不是导致艾滋病的因素。这是比较奇怪的。所以我觉得跟这种人没法再继续交流了,我也不跟他说了。然后我的导师,我真正的导师,夹克力波顿,也不跟他讨论这个问题了。说八月份的时候当时就炒过一阵了,在媒体上炒过一阵,然后就平息了。我这些跟路伯恩斯坦交流的这些文章,在我的博客上都找得到,所以现在这些人只不过是把这些旧账又翻出来,把我早就已经说过的这些文章又翻出来,重炒一遍。让当时没有关注这件事的人觉得很疑惑。甚至被误导,以为我真的涉嫌抄袭,被我的导师夸大了,甚至说是我的论文抄袭,这些都是与事实不符的。我本来不愿意把精力放在这一块,因为现在面临的是韩寒的问题,不是我的问题,我这些问题以前都已经说过了,他们只不过想把水搅浑,把大家的注意力从韩寒的身上转移到我的身上。我本来是不愿意过多地来谈论这件事的,那么,今天刚好有土豆网给我这么一个机会,我就多说几句。

Q2:请解释一下什么是学术抄袭,你的著作中也有引用其他人观点的地方,这样算不算是抄袭?

他们所有这些材料都是根据一个叫亦明,还有一个叫寻正,这两个人的文章,这两个都已经写了好几百万字的文章,都可以弄成厚厚的好几本书了,来攻击我。他们想证明的一点就是说我所有的文章都是抄来的,都是抄袭。也针对我的文学作品,诗歌,这更好笑。还有呢,也针对我的科普文章。而他们的做法就是,我写科普文章,涉及到某一个问题,像转基因玉米啊什么的,他们就找到一篇或者两篇类似的文章,然后呢,噢,你这个里面有相似的地方,所以呢,你(的文章)就是从国外的文章抄来的。这本来就是非常的好笑,因为我是在写科普文章,写科普文章根据的是学术界的一些共同的看法,还有别人的研究,因为不是我自己的研究,所以,你只要说有类似内容的、类似题材的文章,你总能够找到相似的内容,然后你就说这是剽窃。这本来就是非常奇怪的。不能说,根据里面有一些观点一样,或者说内容有一些相似的地方,然后就认为说,那个是剽窃。对科普文章用的这个剽窃跟学术论文是不一样的。他们实际上是用学术论文的要求来要求科普文章,学术论文的要求是独创性,里面的内容,如果没有注明,就必须是自己的观点。如果是用到别人的观点,那么你就要注明出处,不然别人会误以为那是你的观点,就会被认为是剽窃。但科普文章不一样。科普文章大家都知道,你这个介绍的是别人的观点,介绍的是学术界的研究的成果,所以,除非你说明说这个是我本人的观点,不然,别人都不会把它当成你的观点的。所以,科普文章不注明出处,不注明你的观点的出处,是不会说引起误会,然后,当然了,也不会有剽窃。当然科普文章也有剽窃,科普文章的剽窃是指文字上的剽窃,比如说我科普文章也经常被人剽窃,就是整段整段的把我的内容抄过去,照抄过去,改都不改,或者是只是略微修改,或者甚至把我的整篇文章都抄过去,这是属于文字的剽窃。这是科普文章的这种剽窃的定义。我本人是没有的,我没有说拿别人的一篇文章,翻译过来,或者是拿别人的文章照抄一遍,这是根本不存在这种情况。

Q3:深圳大学传播系副主任孙海峰微博爆料你的著作《大象为什么不长毛》涉嫌剽窃他人的图表,对此你的解释是?

现在也有一家报纸报道了,说是《齐鲁晚报》报道了,然后在网上还传得挺广的,说是我10年出的一本书,叫《大象为什么不长毛》,里面有论文,抄袭了别人的表格,而且还把翻译都翻译错了,说有低级的翻译错误。这是极为可笑的。大家要知道,《大象为什么不长毛》它不是论文集,它也是一个科普文章集,里面一篇一篇都是科普文章。科普文章里面要介绍别人的成果。他们说的那篇文章,就是在介绍别人论文的某一个观点,所以这个时候,用到了这篇论文的插图。这就不属于剽窃。我没有说那个插图是我自己做的,或者是这个成果是我自己做的,因为大家都知道你科普文章嘛,介绍的就是别人的东西,按照我们现在出版行业的惯例,用到别人插图的时候,是不必要,用到别人论文插图的时候,是不必要注明出处的。因为大家知道你就是用别人论文的插图介绍他的观点的。当然我当时用这个插图的时候,我也没给它翻译,因为我也没有这个软件在那上面编了什么,就是原始的插图就给了出版方,然后编辑呢,他觉得里面有英文,怕读者说看不懂,他们自己把里面的那些英文给翻译成中文了。然后就发给我,校样里头,我在校对的时候,有一些校对出来了,就是他翻译的时候翻译错了,因为这涉及到学术的问题,他可能不熟悉,但个别的,我当时没有校对出来,包括这个《大象为什么不长毛》中的插图,就属于这种情况。所以有读者跟我说了以后,我当时在微博上已经澄清了,然后在重印的时候都已经改过来了。结果他们现在又抓住这个问题,在大做文章,这实际上是在一年多以前我自己都已经说过的事了。

Q4:易天提出的肖传国名誉侵权案件是怎么回事,以及关于5万赔偿金最后赔偿的情况。

肖传国的事情是这样的:肖传国在05年曾经在武汉法院起诉我,说损害他的名誉权,然后法院判我赔三万。当时这个判决下来以后,舆论大哗,因为那个判决纯粹就是胡判的。比如说我当时批评肖传国,他肖传国他说,曾经获得美国泌尿学会一个大奖,然后我就到美国泌尿学会的网站去查,发现历年获奖者名单里头,没有肖传国,所以我认为肖传国没有得过那个奖。结果武汉法院的判决是,在历年获奖者名单当中找不到肖传国的名字,不等于肖传国没有得奖。所以这是极为搞笑的。类似于这种判决判下来,然后就是说我侵犯了肖传国的名誉权啊,赔三万,当时就舆论大哗,很多网友都要捐款给我,我就说,我不接受个人的捐款,后来有网友就成立了类似于基金会的这种组织,在美国也成立了一个,在中国也成立了一个,接受大家的捐款,是想替我付这笔钱嘛。我当时就上诉,所以上诉就不存在付钱的问题。然后上诉二审就维持原判,就因为上诉还是在武汉嘛,到武汉中级法院,维持原判。维持原判那我就必须要付钱呐,然后我就想,我不主动交钱,等你法院给我发个通知,发执行通知的时候,我再来交钱,我不会主动去交。那这个通知就一直等不来,这个是07年的时候了。他们就没有给我发这个执行通知,当然了我也就不会主动去交钱。然后到09年八月份的时候,在网上突然看到肖传国发了一个帖子,说你方舟子跑得了和尚跑不了庙,我已经把钱,四万块钱,从你老婆的银行帐号划了,拿到了。然后我当时就觉得,我们当时就觉得,奇怪,怎么从我老婆的银行帐号去拿,我老婆跟我什么关系,对吧?然后就去查,果然,就从我妻子的银行帐号被划走了四万块钱。我就找银行去了,银行就说当时武汉法院派人过来了,拿了一个执行判决书,所以我们不得不把钱给他了。而且那个判决书里头,还把我妻子的名字也给加上了。当时就不得不给了。当时我们就提起异议了。首先这是我和肖传国的事,你跟我妻子有什么关系,你为什么把钱从我妻子划走,划了四万,它除了三万赔偿,四万什么利息呀,执行费呀什么等等吧,加起来是四万。而且我和妻子是有一个婚前协议的,就是她名下的钱跟我没有关系,我名下的钱跟她也没有关系。其实就是怕出现这种情况嘛。就是说这不是夫妻共同财产,她银行的钱是她的。然后,还有呢,我们从来没有得到这个执行通知,不是我们不想缴纳这个钱,你从来没有执行,没有给我发执行通知,我从来没收到。所以我们就提起了这个异议。提异议只能向原来的法院提,原来的法院当然就驳回,还撒了一个谎,说曾经给我发过什么执行通知,我根本就没收到。所以我就问你发执行通知你究竟那哪一天发的,证据在哪里?根本就没有。然后又说这个是夫妻共同财产。问题是,我们有一个婚协议呀,就是当时有一个婚前协议呀,都已经说这不是夫妻共同财产了。但是他们把我们驳了。我们就再上诉到中级法院。那这个就一直还停在那里。中级法院就不判。不判,所以我们是已经被划走了四万块钱了。而且是我妻子被划走的。所以网上那个易天在造谣,说我有五万块钱,首先不是五万,判的是三万,然后被多划走了一万;说什么一直赖着不交什么的,实际上早就都被划走了。



被编辑1次。最后被亦明编辑于06/13/2015 05:21PM。
主题 发布者 已发表

Open Letter to Nature_Part XLVII_The Hanly War (VIII): The Genuine Quack_1 (2112 查看)

亦明 February 25, 2015 02:18PM

The Hanly War (VIII): The Genuine Quack_2 (930 查看) 附件

亦明 February 25, 2015 02:25PM

The Hanly War (IX): Drowning in the Ocean of Scandals (I): The Plagiarism_1 (1138 查看) 附件

亦明 May 08, 2015 07:12PM

The Hanly War (IX): Drowning in the Ocean of Scandals (I): The Plagiarism_2 (939 查看)

亦明 May 08, 2015 07:15PM

The Hanly War (IX): Drowning in the Ocean of Scandals (I): The Plagiarism_3 (852 查看)

亦明 May 08, 2015 07:16PM

Fang Zhouzi Clarifies That He Didn’t Commit Plagiarism in his Works (893 查看)

亦明 May 08, 2015 07:18PM



对不起,只有注册用户才能发帖。

登陆

2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.