Disciplinary - DrBerggren

Summary:

Possible massive, well-received plagiarism.

page 1 of 41234next »

DrBerggren

ProcyonLotor 02 May 2015 21:10

I was linked to a user's post on SCP-1926 by Ihp last night. It was a post that claimed it had sourced the images- upon investigation, not only had it done that, but it had also revealed that large portions of article's text and concepts had been lifted wholesale.
From the article, posted March 28th, 2013, currently rated +257:

Meet the Mewts.
The Mewts are magical creatures from a place that is so far away, it's right next to your dreams. They don't have mouths, so they can’t speak. They don’t have arms, so they can’t hug. But they are full of more love than any creature you've ever known. They exist to watch over us, with their big, knowing eyes. They are protectors of everything we hold dear. We are what they hold dear.

From the linked etsy auction, which dates back to November 27, 2007:

Meet the Mewts.

The Mewts are magical creatures from a place that is so far away, it’s right next to your dreams. They don’t have mouths, so they can’t speak. They don’t have arms, so they can’t hug. But they are full of more love than any creature you’ve ever known. They exist to watch over us, with their big, knowing eyes. They are protectors of everything we hold dear. We are what they hold dear.

If there are any differences at all between the text, I haven't noticed them.
Nowhere in the article's comments does Berggren provide even the slightest hint it is not original content. I've messaged the user, but I think it's a fairly cut and shut case of plagiarism.
While the original link to the source may not have been the etsy auction itself (Soulless, who provided the image, says it might have been a flickr page), there is still significant text and ideas ripped from the artist's content.
Staff is still determining a course of action with regards to the article. In addition, should the article be preserved, there may possibly be stuff both licensing and image team needs to look at, but personally, I feel it would be prudent to handle the more pressing matter first.
e: User VAE found a flickr page that includes one of the images, also named Snoozee, dating back to 2009. This also has links to the artist's etsy page.

Last edited on 02 May 2015 21:30 by ProcyonLotor Show more

Re: DrBerggren

Decibelles 02 May 2015 21:30

As VAElynx has pointed out, not even Snoozee is safe. The picture comes from here, with the name of the photo being… Snoozee.

Re: DrBerggren

Doctor Cimmerian 02 May 2015 22:55

Quick observation: The image from the page for the mewts is not available on that auction page. Though it is clearly that same doll (I looked at Mewts 1,2, and 4. They are different designs).

Last edited on 02 May 2015 23:22 by Doctor Cimmerian Show more

Re: DrBerggren

(account deleted) 02 May 2015 23:18

1) If DrBerggren plagiarized this¹, they should be permanently banned. There is no conceivable universe in which plagiarism is acceptable on a creative writing website. If they received permission to use the text and forgot to mention it², they should put a disclaimer somewhere in the article or the comments revealing the source of the passage. They should do this in about two years ago, so that people could know that the core of their article contains something that they did not create. I would not be opposed to warning in this situation.

2) I support deleting the article. I know that people like it, but given that the stuff that makes it work is the stuff that Berggren³ took, the whole article is tainted. We have summarily deleted articles that stole the core concept from another work before.

3) If the article stays up, we have, at a minimum, a responsibility to ask the creators of the two works their thoughts. We've had, and continue to have, issues with people using images without attribution, permission, or even checking if the creator is particularly litigious. The Image team continues to wrestle with this issue, but when something like this is brought directly to our attention, we absolutely need to ask the creators of they want the images taken down.

Footnotes

1. Which seems likely. Which is what happened.

2. Which seems exceedingly unlikely.

3. more than likely

Last edited on 03 May 2015 14:28 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: DrBerggren

Doctor Cimmerian 02 May 2015 23:25

The creators may prefer for the pieces to stay up. We can't know until we ask them, and we can ask them. If it takes longer than a day or two to get replies, blank the article (but don't delete it) and wait.

If it turns out to be some wildly improbable misunderstanding a blanking can be reversed, but a deletion cannot be. If after a reasonable amount of time we get no replies from anyone or nothing satisfactory, we have to assume the worst and free up the number.

Edit: It's important to remember that mewts exists all over the fucking internet now (as it's a very popular skip). We *have* to contact the original artists no matter how we handle the original content.

Last edited on 02 May 2015 23:29 by Doctor Cimmerian Show more

Re: DrBerggren

(account deleted) 03 May 2015 00:50

VAE PM'd me with the following:

As I was marginally involved (tracking down second pic during chat with procyon)

First of all, as far as I care, the question of permission is irrelevant. The way I view it, the "crime" in plagiarism is akin to a scam - taking undue acclaim and reward by claiming the creatorship of a work you didn't (and in many cases, don't have the ability to, but this is irrelevant) create.
As such, I believe the crucial issue here is that they have not attributed the text taken from the original creator, which doesn't change in its nature or severity even if they had somehow asked for and received permission.

Secondly - Cimmerian isn't right. The site staff can't and should not contact anyone on behalf of unrelated fanworks and repostings that are "all over the internet", because not only is claiming jurisdiction over things we can't enforce silly, it could lead to dangerous precedent with someone taking us for our word later.

Instead, after summary deletion, the Internet Outreach team should post in relevant interfacial outlets (tumblr, reddit, dA etc.) the Foundation's official stance - that the article in question is disavowed by the Foundation on the basis of being plagiarized.

Re: DrBerggren

Vivax 02 May 2015 23:35

Summary deletion and banning. That's what we do for plagiarism.

Re: DrBerggren

djkaktus 03 May 2015 02:15

Honestly, I'm not sure it matters even if the original creator gives permission. The image isn't necessarily the problem, the text is, and if the text is ripped wholesale from anywhere, it's plagiarism, and a bannable offense. Users are allowed to use /ideas/ with permission, but taking text without changing it is pretty cut and dry.

Supporting summary deletion and a ban. If this were any other article we would've done it already. It's a shame, but we have a standard to maintain.

Re: DrBerggren

Decibelles 03 May 2015 02:30

Regardless of what action we take, I at LEAST want to hear what Berg has to say. Whether or not that changes his punishment doesn't matter, because he should still give us his side of the story regardless.

Re: DrBerggren

Doctor Cimmerian 03 May 2015 03:00

Oh to note, I noticed Berggren was active on twitter about 20 minutes before I checked. I sent him a link to this thread and a suggestion to show up in #site17 or if unable to do that to message Gaffney. He's been active on that account over the last couple of days so he should get it. I hope anyway.

Re: DrBerggren

(account deleted) 03 May 2015 11:22

- Realized that this was in a weird place forum-wise, and so made it its own post. Someone please delete this.

Last edited on 03 May 2015 11:32 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: DrBerggren

Wogglebug 03 May 2015 03:14

Voct PMd me in chat, asking me to note that if 1926 is removed, dependent references (specifically the one in the SCP-978 Test Logs) should also be removed. Not speaking to this myself, merely passing this along for him so the appropriate people can handle that if/when the time comes.

Re: DrBerggren

ProcyonLotor 03 May 2015 03:36

Voct spoke with me further about his thoughts on the article. Trimmed a little, nothing related removed:

+ show block

<Voct> hi, do you have a few minutes
<ProcyonLotor> I do.
<Voct> olkay
<Voct> first: I already spoke to Wogglebug about this, and he said he's not really involved.
<Voct> second: this is not me asking permission for something.
<Voct> I have some comments re: the 1926 mess which I feel should be taken into account
<ProcyonLotor> Shoot. Might have already been covered here, though: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-1186120/drberggren#post-2284521
<Voct> I already read the thread
<Voct> yeah, in addition to that
<Voct> the point is
<Voct> I think that the portion of the SCP which was copypasted directly from Etsy
<Voct> is small enough that it can be remade
<Voct> the majority of the SCP is "the behavior of these creatures"
<Voct> and "the failure of Snoozy"
<Voct> ahem
<ProcyonLotor> I'm of similar mind in some respects, but I'm also sympathetic to the "fruit of a poisonous tree" argument
<Voct> mm
<Voct> given the amount of original work here
<Voct> *If* this SCP is deleted
<Voct> I suggest that perhaps this need not necessarily be a bannable offense for Berggren
<ProcyonLotor> I'll post your thoughts, but I disagree severely.
<Voct> I could easily rewrite that Addendum Description
<Voct> I mean, Snoozee isn't even by the same artist (as far as I can tell)
<ProcyonLotor> Even so, it's plagiarism. And plagiarism is unacceptable, in more or less the strongest sense of the word.
<ProcyonLotor> It is.

• Voct nods

<ProcyonLotor> Anything further?
<Voct> well, I feel that this one can be saved by radical surgery
<Voct> chopping off the addendum
<Voct> If you could post that in the thread.
<Voct> That's pretty much it; thank you for taking the time to speak with me on this point.

Re: DrBerggren

thedeadlymoose 03 May 2015 05:06

I am amenable to seeing this rewritten. I would suggest two stages:

1) Contact the artist (at least the mewts artist) and ask for permission. We can rewrite the article itself to credit the original creator in universe with ease, actually (I can do this if needed).
2) Last ditch: Rewrite the article and … possibly repost it? After removing all the lifted material. Though this is iffier because mere rephrasing won't make it not plagiarism. I'm not sure this second stage is worth it. Disregard this. Stage two is deletion, if the artist doesn't approve.

This is all aside from what Berggren might say because I can't really predict his response.

Either way, we should not take action until we hear back from him.

Last edited on 03 May 2015 22:03 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: DrBerggren

Decibelles 03 May 2015 05:10

Contact the artist (at least the mewts artist) and ask for permission. We can rewrite the article itself to credit the original creator in universe with ease, actually (I can do this if needed).

From discussions in chat, I had assumed the issue was that due to Berggren wholesale lifting text and names from the two sources without the attribution, and that it was done a whole two years ago to boot, keeping it up wouldn't be good. This isn't like SCP-111 where it was merely a picture without being attributed; it's text from the Etsy page.

Last edited on 03 May 2015 06:51 by Decibelles Show more

Re: DrBerggren

thedeadlymoose 03 May 2015 05:25

Yes. The creator would need to be attributed for all the text and given a linkback, imo. I can think of many artists who would be entertained by that, it would send them hits, and we'd benefit.

And if they don't approve, we could consider a massive rewrite, but should most likely delete the whole thing we should delete the article immediately.

We have plenty of grounds to just delete for plagiarism outright depending on what Berggren says, but if we could benefit the artist whose work was likely unwillingly recontextualized, I'd like to at least consider that. (I mean, this SCP is fairly popular and widely read.)

Last edited on 03 May 2015 22:01 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Re: DrBerggren

Crayne 03 May 2015 11:09

Edited after Eskobar's post on the next page.

Whether or not the original creator agrees is irrelevant to the discussion of plagiarism. Regardless of the outcome re: original creator's consent, I believe this warrants a ban, with an opportunity for appeal after a year.

As for the article, I'd support a rewrite, with the page remaining intact if the original creator agrees with keeping the article up, and deletion and repost if the original creator does not.

Last edited on 03 May 2015 14:04 by Crayne Show more

page 1 of 41234next »