He continued with: "I just think that for someone with such an interest in the history of chess,you might be able to construct your own hypothisis.rather than cutting and pasting from well-known resources..thanxs anyway"
When I took him to task about the definition of plagiarism (a despicable act I have never done and never would consider doing), his response was : "lol.even though you used the correct citation.copying well documented works for self gain is just as bad isnt it??.anyone can cut and paste.I guess all im trying to say is the world needs more original people,not sheep."
[see my notes and his notes for the actual and entire exchange]
I have nothing against shannz and as far as I'm concerned he has the right to his opinion of me (and of what little bit of my efforts he has bothered to examine), as well as his right to voice that opinion, but I don't care for being libeled in the process.
I'll leave it to each individual reader whether what I publish has any merit or is simply some nefarious means of some unspecified self-gain.
shannz, of course, seems to miss the point and value of your endeavor entirely. The work of historiagraphy is in the selection of certain interesting and obscure texts and then placing them in a forum for the edification of and discussion by a wider audience. For the historian, the innovation (and provocation, if you will)is in the selection. Keep up good work and we'll keep reading. That, I expect, is the only "self-gain" you aspire to.
I vote to nominate Sarah Beth the official chess historian of Chess.com
I think that this young man does not understand the role of the historian. Is he suggesting that if someone were to discover a lost manuscript by E. A Poe that it not be published because Poe himself is not here to claim credit?
The historian provides a voice to those who are no longer here to speak for themselves. Sarah Beth is keeping a chronical of these old writings alive for future generations of chess enthusiast.
I would go so far as to say that if someone wanted to learn about Morphy, or turn of the century chess clubs, the nascsent growth of chess in the post industrial USA, or about the early years of womens chess - they would be hard pressed to find a better source then our own batgirl.
(I would also wager that Sarah Beth's blog is the most popular blog on the most popular chess Site in the world . . . )
Keep up the good work. Your research is valuable and the complaints of miscreants should be ignored.
I RATHER ENJOY YOUR DISCOURSE ON CHESS AND ON MORPHY -
SHANNZ APPEARS TO TO BE ONE OF THOSE POOR UNFORTUNITE INFEARIOR PEOPLE WHO CANT DO FOR HIMSELF - SO IN DEFENDING AN INFERRIOR MIND HE SCRACHES AT THE INTELECT HE DOESN'T HAVE
Please continue. Better yet write even more you have a avid readership.
Thanks for your efforts, I look forward to the next installment.
Chris "kyska00"
OK well if bat girl is putting out the material without acknowledging the source than ya i would say it is plagiarism however lets take music for example there's very few songs that don'tbarrow from one of them anyway shes not making money off of someone Else's work as her own so maybe a bit of jealousy and just someone who could write there own and put it out as well well anyway have fun playing chess and thanks
I think you are doing a wonderful job (like many other people who enjoy all of the work you publish). I skim over the titles of many of the articles I see on this site, but I am glad when I see that the author is you, Batgirl. I know that the article will be well written, very informative, and worth my time. There are few other people I would read before you ( and that is just due to their expertise, such as silman and his impressive ability to answer chess questions that he has a lot of expertise in). I did not mean to ramble! Just trying to say that I enjoy your articles very much!
Using the work of others is not always plagiarism. The rules are decided in each nation and in international agreements. Entire chess books are being reproduced by some publishers without paying for the rights to republish. Expired copyright protection puts written matter into the public domain. Matter still protected requires considering fair use and citations.
Batgirl offers chess.com historical articles different from other contributors and I surmise does so ethically.
just another vote of support here. Don't stop please. shannz is acting on an assumption that is intrinsically flawed and arrogant. What you do is extremely valuable and rare. Keep it up.
When you answer trolls, it only feeds their vitrol.
Seriously, no sane person would ever think you were plagiarizing. I'm a college professor (so I know quite well what plagiarism is and isn't) and shannz is only a rabble-rouser and an idiot.
Your articles are delightful and quite well informed. Keep them coming, and don't be distracted by the trolls at the gate.
•plagiarism - a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work.
Since you are referencing to the one who wrote it then you are sharing the knowledge you get with others who may be don't have the opportunities of getting to that knowledge..
Well done work..not only for you, also for all who try to give the others the right to know..
Batgirl, continue doing what you are doing, the way you are doing for the benefit of all those who respect your work (several hundred of thousands) and enjoy your blog which brings to many of us a lot of knowledge and joy.
dahan, Daniel, I did look up Sherrie Levine as you suggested. While I'm not sure I comprehend exactly what she was (is?) striving for in the re-photographing or the re-creation of existing works, or even in the layering of generations of images, it's an interesting idea nonetheless. Thanks for the suggestion.
Thanks everyone for your responses. My intention wasn't really to rally support, though the support is as appreciated as it is unexpected, but rather to meet the public accusation of plagiarism, mitigated to as-bad-as-plagiarism, head on. I understand what constitutes plagiarism, so the ignorant accusation didn't bother me as much as the fact that it was posted publicly where someone might construe it as fact rather than some silly flight of fantasy.
Dozy, I have a story I'll publish shortly by Daniel Willard Fiske on Chess and the Inferno (actually, Chess in Hades) which might be right up your devilish alley.
philidor_position, if the situation ever again arises, everything I write is automatically public domain and can be used anyway you see fit without any need for permission.
Keyif, thanks for the article on plagiarism. I enjoyed it very much.
Mr. Goeller, I totally agree with your assessment of the Immortal Game, one of my favorite chess books (right up there with Genna Sosonko's series). I'm not sure I agree that I am an archivist. I think I'm more a populist or maybe a popularist, if those terms can mean what I'm thinking. I enjoy researching and sharing my findings with others who may not ever run across them otherwise. It's that simple. I often feel that interjecting my own opinion lessens rather than elevates.
Anyway, I truly appreciate the comments of each individual who took time to write, and even if I haven't mentioned you by name, each of your handles is etched into my consciousness.
I think you are doing a great public service, and there is no question that the work you do is not plagiarism (and I should know as a college writing program administrator). After all, you are careful to note your sources and never represent the work of others as your own. In this instance, you are not even violating anyone's copyright, since the material you reproduce is in the public domain. However, while he expresses it in a very primitive and offensive way, I think your critic has a point. You could be doing more to interpret the materials you find so that readers can understand them better.
In a review of The Immortal Game (great book, by the way), I said there were four types of chess historians: lorists (essentially storytellers and gossips), theorists (essentially opening analysts), archivists (history collectors), and social or cultural historians. You are clearly an archivist, but that puts you in good company. As I wrote:
"Archivists include Edward Winter (Chess Facts and Fables), John S. Hilbert (Shady Side: The Life and Crimes of Norman T. Whitaker and Young Marshall), and Olimpiu Urcan, among others. These writers are focused on unearthing game scores, photographs, forgotten opening theory, and confirmed factual information about the players of the past, often in direct contradiction of their lorist predecessors. They are doing the very important work of laying a foundation for the theorists and the social historians, but they typically assume a very limited field of observation and are more focused on excavating historical information (especially the ever elusive game scores) than on generating usable knowledge or social context to explain their findings to a non-specialist reader."
However, I concluded that section by saying that "I think we would all benefit if more archivists tried to write larger narratives of the social or cultural type."
The story of Morphy playing chess with the devil probably deserves some interpretation and analysis. You might have taken on that project, as you often have done at Sarah's Chess Journal.
Keep up the great work BG!
If someone is concerned about plagarism they can check
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/
but on the web a general link to the source is fine.
BG, Ignore the 'nattering nabobs of negativism' and keep on doing what your doing! Many thanks for unearthing these nuggets and bringing them into the light!
I view your work as recovering the nearly-lost and discovering the forgotten, not rehashing the well-known or restating the obvious. You pull lost history back from the brink of oblivion. Too obscure for many historians, the history of chess is a history of a unique art that influenced humankind and should not be forgotten. Keep up the good work.
How magnificently wrongheaded. Batgirl you at times seem to be the only person on the net NOT plagiarizing! The idea of someone calling your work plagiarism -- It would be offensive if it weren't so howlingly ridiculous.
Your scholarship is very much appreciated. Shannz has given us all a good excuse to tell you how wonderful your work is, so thanks for that Shannz.
It's not plagiarism, period. Perhaps he simply wasn't that interested in the article.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.
Sarah Beth NC, U.S.A.
batgirl
View complete profile
Some of my Chess Sites
My Chess Journal
Paul Morphy
Lisa Lane
Prince André Dadian
Monte Carlo 1902
Schachdorf Ströbeck
Love, Romance & Sex in Chess
Chess Literature in the Renaissance
Chess Players of the Renaissance
The Romance of Chess
Le Vieux Carré et Paul Morphy
Chess and the Surrealists
The First 17 Years of Organized Women's Chess in America
The Great Radio Match of 1945
Forgotten Women Champions
Hollywood Chess
Checkmates:
Traps:
Judy's Problems:
Chess Automatons
Opening ExplorerGame ExplorerGame Database