Matt Wingard & Plagiarism 2: Distract and Evade

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Well, my post yesterday about Rep. Matt Wingard and his plagarized speech seems to have generated quite a bit of protest from the good legislator and his supporters.

The Wilsonville Spokesman newspaper appears to be the only outlet that's received an explanation from Wingard:

Wingard contacted The Spokesman via e-mail Monday night saying that he read the editorial during the Remonstrance time Friday and was planning on sending out a press release citing where he got the information. The press release went out Monday with a link to the video and an explanation that it came from a Washington Times editorial.

"I guess, if you're afraid of the substance of the debate, you attempt to distract from it as much as possible," Wingard said. "I had a number of scientists review my speech before I read it. I stand by the substance of the statement. Everything else is just political games."

As of Monday afternoon, Wingard had posted a description of the speech on his legislative site:

Rep. Matt Wingard (R-Wilsonville) rose on the House Floor to share a Washington Times editorial on “Climategate” where hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit revealed that global warming advocates had for years attempted to hide conflicting data and silence their professional critics. While world temperatures cool, “climate change fanatics seek to blame capitalism and productivity for global warming, global cooling, too much snow, not enough snow, hurricanes, tornadoes and even the Haiti earthquake.”

A few thoughts:

Matt, in my day job, I work for the other side. But here's a little free crisis-communications advice: When you're in a hole, stop digging. The Portland Mercury and the Wilsonville Spokesman are already poking around. It won't be long before much bigger newspaper staffs are pulling all of your old speeches and doin' the google.

Come clean, tell the truth, apologize, and move on. Otherwise, it's only going to get worse.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    And just a reminder: comments on the substance of the debate over global warming will be off-topic and removed.

    Comments about motherhood and apple pie are always welcome. :)

  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari: Isn't this really just about a case of if you can't attack the message, just attack the messenger?

  • Connor Allen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yes, had he only rehashed the original article that would've been one thing, but that he added, removed, and edited other parts makes it clear that his explanation is a lie.

  • Bill Wilkinson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's be absolutely clear. I don't care one whit about the substance of Wingard's comments. He could have been waxing eloquent on motherhood and apple pie. If he'd ripped off someone else's words without attribution, and I'd have noticed, I'd have written about it. The fact that it's a bunch of goofy comments about climate change is only relevant inasmuch as that's what originally brought it to Carla's attention in her post.

    Doesn't that really chafe your tits? Exactly what "moral purists" were saying about Sam Adams and it not having one thing to do with sex. Wish you had taken the approach on one of those threads that "this is about Sam's lying and tactics; content about his sexual dalliances will be removed". Glad to know that, at least for a moment, it's not "hopelessly naive" to talk about intellectual integrity "in the heat of battle". Maybe there will be some realization that it never had anything to do with Portland realpolitik or party contests, but simply that some people find it most expedient to consciously dissemble when faced with a tight situation. For those that say his history of child abuse isn't relevant, reread the speech. There's a definite impulse control problem there.

    We're really arguing that a trained journalist should admit as much as your retweet troll did on the even of the special election? There's no difference. Confronted with the evidence, he apologized. Here, we face a scrum of climate change deniers. If you've got a kid that is getting bullied, and you try every normal channel, talk yourself blue, and still your son is bullied, what do you do? Do you continue to write memos or do you beat the living shit out of his father? Non-violence is great, when it's your neck. When it's not, you either turn away or take up the fight.

    It really is all about speech. The climate trolls here have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the time for talking is over. It's time for direct, targeted action. What will you do to counter human arrogance? Would you have helped John Brown and possibly prevented the greater bloodshed of the Civil War? The time has come to decide. Many of these trolls have left enough information to identify them. Knowledge is power. Use it or face the consequences!

    If Matt Wingard can stroll down the street and go about his business without facing the same kind of distract and irritate tactic that we have, then they are better than us. As I said, this guy has an impulse control problem. Get in his face and get large about it, and he will lose it. Make a list of three reasons you don't take direct action. Now, ask yourself this. When your kids ask you, 25 years from now, why you didn't stop these people, or do more to address them, will you feel comfortable with those three answers? Will you be able to look your kids in the eye and say it was worth it? In the current climate, only these shills for big energy can be called environmental terrorists. The wolf is at the door. Will you fight it, or throw it one of your kids?

  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    From Wikipedia on Plagiarism: "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

    Wingard cannot and does not represent himself as a research scientist having been asked to research and report his findings on "global warming" and "climate change". And everyone knows he is not a scientist.

    He reported facts about this subject as reported by other newspapers and publications. Should it matter whether he used their words? This is baloney! As a meteorologist I frequently quote established facts verbatum from other scientists when making a point.

    He did not represent the facts he wrote or quoted as being his own ideas or discovered facts.

    This is really stretching the definition of plagiarism, Keri. The worst I see here is not giving credit to the source of the information. So what? How does that matter in the context of the message?

    This is attempting to diminsh and deflect the message he delivered to the legislature.

  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Connor Allen: Where was anything Wingard stated in his message a lie concerning climate change?

    Keri states he changed the definitiuon of water vapor and CO2 being equal to water vapor being far more important. The latter is true. So in this regard, the newspapers are incorrect and I can give plenty of peer reviwed and established science citations about this.

  • (Show?)

    Kari: Isn't this really just about a case of if you can't attack the message, just attack the messenger?

    No. I don't care one whit about Wingard's message. Like I said, he could have been going on and on about motherhood and apple pie. Same problem, same coverage.

    This isn't about global warming. Those just happen to be the words he stole.

  • (Show?)

    I can give plenty of peer reviwed and established science citations about this.

    Please don't, Chuck. The scientific disagreement is not on point here. We've had plenty of threads to argue about global warming.

    As for Bill's comment, I think it's off-topic, but I'm not sure. I can't figure out what the heck it's supposed to be about.

  • Nels (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Haha, wow. Kari, well-done. There is a lack of professionalism in Salem these days and watchdogs like you are always needed. Great work.

  • Garage Wine (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am bookmarking these posts for the next time a Salem Democrat cribs a speech.

    I sure we'll get something like: "Yes, Senator Talksalot plagiarized his speech. But the subject is more important the mom and apple pie and it had to be repeated."

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill is going Tre Arrow with a call to action to defeat the skeptics. He's the leading edge of the next phase of the fraudulent Global Warming movement. Kari, Your melodramatic bit has turned even more absurd. It's obvious you lost the first round of your attempt and feel all you need do is ramp up the drama to sting Wingard. Nuts. The idea that YOU would be making things "clear" and "advising" Matt is too ridiculous to respond to. This entire episode is a very lame smear job. Stuffing it with more paragraphs of fabrication, embellishment and phony outrage may rally your choir but the sour notes will not be heard as anything but diversion, sour grapes and petty politics. I usually work for the other side but I'll advise you to find something worthy of you and your caring, thoughtful and intellectually superior brethren to address.

    Perhaps one of the many corruptions in the State. If you are unable to detect any there's plenty of help available.

    As for Rep. Wingard, he's turned out to be one of the finest legislators we have and his re-eletion will be a breeze. Despite your juvenile attempt at discrediting him.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Convicted child-beater Wingard states:

    "had a number of scientists review my speech before I read it."

    Ok, I'll be the first to ask: Name them.

  • (Show?)

    So, Richard, are you claiming he didn't give a speech in which the text was pulled from a COMBINATION of two articles, sprinkled throughout with minor changes to hide plagiarism?

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wingard's "explanation" is total BS. If he had wanted to make it clear he was "sharing" something somebody else had written, he could have simply said at the outset of his speech: "I'd like to share with you an editorial that appeared in the Washington Times." He didn't.

    The trolls can try to rationalize this all they want, but I know that if a seventh-grader had to write a paper on global warming and he simply copied a newspaper editorial and put his name on it, he'd be flunked.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari,

    Are you kidding. You have yet to get the point?
    Turn off your hack filter and try reading and comprehending exactly what is said.

    Yes, despite you dramatic effort to tarnish him, I am saying Wingard did NOT "give a speech" he doctored to "hide plagiarism".

    You made that up.

    What is it with progressives that has them so incappable of simply getting our points exactly how we word them and mean them?

    Do you deliberatley filter, re-shape and/or distort them just to fit an easier and preferred response?

    Now isn't there something important in Oregon for you to tackle?

  • Theresa Kohlhoff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I had to laugh. Understand that the Wilsonville Spokesman is a relatively conservative newspaper. The fact that they brought it out at all means they were uncomfortable. If you were going to crib excessively, then at least pick a top which doesn't make you an embarrassment to an otherwise progressive community. I for one have no affinity to angry young men trying to push their weight around and then being completely stupid and informed.

  • (Show?)

    First Wingard plagiarizes.

    Then he tries to lie and cover it up.

    Lovely.

    This guy's a real peach.

  • In Plato's Cave (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So let's see if I have this straight: A state legislator stands up and delivers a speech on the house floor that is clearly not his own, and a political blog takes note and points it out, and then the far-right keepers-of-the-flame immediately move to DEFCON 1 and claim it's no big deal because, well, they say so.

    Perhaps Wingard's should have just written on his left palm "Don't forget the attribution, dummy."

    That's all it would've taken for this to be a non-issue, but when you represent a political philosophy (Palinism) that intentionally posits itself as anti-intellectual, little things like giving proper credit to a source is just something those darn elitists would do -- oh sure, you betcha.

    But maybe with ought to give Wingard a break -- after all, I suppose opening a speech with "As the Washington Times wrote" might elicit too much laughter.

  • Bronch O'Humphrey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is so ridiculous. Why would he have "scientists" go over a speech that had already been published elsewhere? I would bet a shiny nickel he didn't check anything with anyone. What utility would there be in that?!

    People like Matt Wingard are going to make the Oregon legislature into Congress. That would be about the worst thing in the world.

  • (Show?)

    But maybe with ought to give Wingard a break -- after all, I suppose opening a speech with "As the Washington Times wrote" might elicit too much laughter.

    Yannow, I hadn't really thought of that and I know you meant it as a bit of a swipe, but I wonder if there isn't a grain of legitimacy to that.

  • (Show?)

    Richard, let's try and make this real simple:

    Watch the video. Read the Times editorial. Read the Globe and Mail column.

    Explain to me how it's not plagiarism. Forget my motivations. Forget what Wingard was saying about global warming.

    In 2-3 sentences, try and give me a legitimate reason for Wingard's actions:

    • The lack of any attribution.
    • The selective reading of the Times editorial.
    • The insertion of the paragraph from Margaret Wente.
    • The random changing of words.
  • (Show?)

    So let's see if I have this straight: A state legislator stands up and delivers a speech on the house floor that is clearly not his own, and a political blog takes note and points it out, and then the far-right keepers-of-the-flame immediately move to DEFCON 1 and claim it's no big deal because, well, they say so.

    I don't see how you juxtapose DEFCON 1 with "it's no big deal."

    Actually, the right answer is the latter. This is no big deal. It's a rookie mistake by a first term legislator. I would say you are all making BlueOregon look silly but that would be redundant.

  • (Show?)

    Actually, the right answer is the latter. This is no big deal. It's a rookie mistake by a first term legislator. I would say you are all making BlueOregon look silly but that would be redundant.

    Wrong.

    If it were just a "rookie mistake", Wingard wouldn't continue to lie about it. This guy has a history of nefarious behavior. This is simply the next link in the chain.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Bronch O'Humphrey | Feb 16, 2010 8:54:39 AM This is so ridiculous. Why would he have "scientists" go over a speech that had already been published elsewhere?

    And we have a winner! That my friends is the poker tell which shows that Weingard is full of shit, lying about how he came to give "his speech" on the floor and getting caught out using other people's words without attribution and trying to palm it off as his own thoughts.

    That he claims he had "scientists" check an already published speech he now claims he was reading from (which as Kari points out is not even accurate because he cribbed passages form other works as well) exposes the lie. If it was simply a published work he wanted read into the record, why would he have to claim he had "scientists" review it?

  • (Show?)

    Minor correction:

    That he claims he had "scientists" check an already published speech he now claims he was reading from...

    SHould read:

    That he claims he had "scientists" check an already published op/ed he now claims he was reading from...
  • In Plato's Cave (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I don't see how you juxtapose DEFCON 1 with "it's no big deal."

    That's because DEFCON 1 for republicans is generally, "nothing to see here -- move on." It's their defense of last resort, and they pull it out when they're at their most embarrassed and have precious little left with which they can deflect just criticism.

    Although I give you credit for only going to DEFCON 2 -- the "you look silly" argument.

    But on the other hand, if indeed Wingard's stunt is no bit deal, and BO looks silly pursuing it, then you ought to be ecstatic. After all nothing's better than the other side plunging down rabbit holes chasing after ghosts, and looking silly doing it, right?

    But the Gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.

  • Jim H (unverified)
    (Show?)
    Scott: Convicted child-beater Wingard states: "had a number of scientists review my speech before I read it." Ok, I'll be the first to ask: Name them.

    Yes, I'm curious too.

    As for the seriousness of the matter... Should he resign? No of course not. But it's definitely worthwhile to take note of ethical lapses when they occur in order to establish a pattern (if/when a pattern does emerge). It's useful information come election time for his constituents and/or potential opponents (primary or general). If this is the only ding on his record no one is going to care.

    I would hope we would track similar problems with Democrats so that we can encourage credible primary challengers when the need arises.

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As stated above, plagiarism is defined as, “use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's OWN ORIGINAL WORK" (credit to Chuck Wiese who credits Wikipedia which credits the ‘1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary’…am I still legal here?).

    That Carla was first at BO to post the Wingard video on 2/12/10, that she did so without raising the plagiarism accusation, and that only after Kari’s 2/15/10 plagiarism accusation did she hop on the plagiarism bandwagon begs the question: Carla, given your enthusiasm for the AGW topic here at BO, did you honestly believe – for a period of three days – that the contents of Wingard’s speech were his OWN ORIGINAL WORK?

    Let me answer the question for her: Of course she didn’t; she knew the content of Wingard’s speech was not original because she’s seen most or all of it posted repeatedly here at BO. She didn’t think, “Ah-ha, plagiarism!” because she was busy thinking, “I’ve seen that one and that one and that one before, hmmm…now where did I bookmark those rebuttals?”

    The fact is, anyone paying attention has seen this content over and over before. Wingard KNOWS that. That the points are not his OWN ORIGINAL WORK is self-evident. Self-evidently non-original content read aloud (as opposed to published with Wingard’s name credited) is hardly an attempt at covert plagiarism.

    To conclude, Kari, your ‘plagiarism emperor’ has no clothes. (Is it obvious to you that I borrowed that theme – or do I need to cite the author for you to stay within the disingenuously lofty legal standards here at BO?)

  • jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It would be quite simple for Wingard to clear this up - let's see if the plagiarist has the dignity to go to the floor of the House and apologize.

    Or will he continue to evade the questions, the press, and his constituents about this?

    BTW, I hope all you defenders keep telling BO and the press "It's nothing...move on." There isn't any better fuel for the fire.......

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There doesn't need to be any problem or pattern for Kari and Carla. They and others here have shown that to be the case many times.

    This latest stunt is a fine example and is to be expected. Especially as the global warming cause collapses under the weight of wholesale fraud and ultra sloppy cooking of science.

    Your handling of this shows clearly just how really weird you are.

  • (Show?)

    But on the other hand, if indeed Wingard's stunt is no bit deal, and BO looks silly pursuing it, then you ought to be ecstatic. After all nothing's better than the other side plunging down rabbit holes chasing after ghosts, and looking silly doing it, right?

    I'm not ecstatic because I think political discourse can be better than this.

    And, before you ask, I'll answer the obvious next question: "Yes, I do post similar complaints when I read conservative or Republican blogs posting similar cheap shots against Democrats. Specifically, I've done so on NW Republican, although I also have to admit that Coyote often agrees and will challenge posts on his own blog that he thinks are unfair or overreact even when Democrats are the target."

  • Jonathan Radmacher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm guessing that Wingard's next term to debate is "scientists." Surely one of his kids has had some kind of science class, and after a good beating, affirmed the excellence of his dad's speech, even though it really wasn't his speech.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "This is no big deal. It's a rookie mistake by a first term legislator."

    Like beating your child with a screwdriver. Although I know of no other legislator convicted of beating their child with a screwdriver.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How about the next obvious question for Jack Roberts:

    Are you just trying to back-peddle from your accommodation of reason vis-a-vis M66 & 67?:

    "Jack Roberts' insight: 'I respect everyone's right to support different responses to this problem but it is not helpful to misrepresent the problem or to be in continued denial of the facts.'"

  • (Show?)

    [from the previous topic of this subject]

    Jack Roberts: [R]eading something aloud on the floor of a legislative body without attribution is not the same as printing it and selling copies as if it were your own.

    Actually, I do agree with Jack's view on this. It is embarrassing for Wingard, as much as that man is even capable of being embarrassed, but plagiarism with no economic motive attached is not in the same league as deliberate copyright infringement for profit.

    The question comes though, should "it may be deliberate, but it's not a bad crime" be the standard that representatives be held to?

    I mean, I'm perfectly open to the idea that politicians are people too, and therefore not perfect, but this isn't an inadvertent speeding ticket, or trying to cover up a tryst while being called as a hostile witness in a frivolous lawsuit. It's a guy who deliberately decided to read this on the floor, claiming other words as his own.

    That isn't good. I'd be very unhappy if a Democrat was caught doing this.

    Oh, but lay off Jack Roberts. Yes, he's the most dangerous Republican in the State of Oregon, because he actually has enough integrity to appeal to independents, but that doesn't mean I can't like the guy even though I vehemently disagree with his most of his political positions.

  • tl (in sw) (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack, I appreciate your contribution to this site and the effort you make to keep the discussion civil. I do agree with you that this was a rookie mistake. I disagree that his denials (or outright lies) about it are bigger than "no big deal". He could make it "no big deal" by saying, "you know what, I made a mistake..."

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If Jack Roberts can't take the heat, he should stay out the blogosphere.

    I think it's valid to question his motives when he jumps to the defense of a Republican legislator who has cobbled together a defense of partisan talking points on global climate change by intellectually dishonest means. If he can justify that, then his earlier defense of reason rings hollow, and his appeal to independents looks like pandering.

  • Satchel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I guess, if you're afraid of the substance of the debate, you attempt to distract from it as much as possible," Wingard said.

    A perfect example of a typical Republican tactic: accuse your opponent of the thing you're guilty of.

  • Pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A key question: Who wrote the copy that Matt Wingard read from on the House floor?

    Possible answers: 1) Matt Wingard woke up one morning last week (during the middle of the legislative session) and decided to write a speech on global warming. He went to his file on climate change and pulled out the Washington Times op/ed editorial and the Toronto Globe and Mail column by Wente. He took the time to carefully add and omit certain words. He inserted a paragraph from the Wente column into the middle of the Washington Times op/ed piece. He then added a sentence of his own (or from a third source). After his final edit he "had a number of scientists review my speech before I read it."

    2) Someone else wrote the copy and provided it to Wingard. Wingard was foolish enough to read it.

    I doubt if Wingard wrote the copy himself. Who did?

  • (Show?)

    I appreciate the fact that suddenly I've become the issue here but believe me I don't post on BlueOregon as a part of some grand political strategy. If I had any political ambitions, I wouldn't be wasting my time here.

    I don't post things I don't believe. You don't have to agree with me and I really don't care whether you think I'm being reasonable or unreasonable. Íf you want to know what I think, read what I post.

    I've known Matt Wingard for probably a decade. Although we're both Republicans, there are many things on which we disagree--the subject of his speech being one of them--but I do not for a minute believe he was trying to get away with anything here. He was sloppy and careless, but I also think he learned a lesson.

    This is basically a nonissue for everyone but those of you posting here WHO WERE NEVER GOING TO SUPPORT MATT ANYWAY.

  • Michael Trigoboff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm guessing that Wingard's next term to debate is "scientists." Surely one of his kids has had some kind of science class, and after a good beating, affirmed the excellence of his dad's speech, even though it really wasn't his speech.

    I'm one of the "scientists" that Matt Wingard consulted. As a Ph.D. in Computer Science, I think that I would be seen to fit that description. He didn't make it up.

  • Pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So Micheal, did Matt write the copy that he read or did someone else write it for him?

    So Micheal, did Matt write the copy that he read or did someone else write it for him?

    So Micheal, did Matt write the copy that he read or did someone else write it for him?

    So Micheal, did Matt write the copy that he read or did someone else write it for him?

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "The fact is, anyone paying attention has seen this content over and over before."

    Spin, spin, spin -- the Republicans are tying themselves into knots over this.

    I have been paying attention and I have never seen it. I doubt that many people who don't read the Moonie Times or hang out on right-wing Web sites are aware of it.

    Wingard could have avoided any possibility of confusion by simply stating at the outset that he was reading an editorial from the Washington Times. Why didn't he?

    Until you can give a clear and rational answer to that question you're only hurting your case with these clumsy evasions and distractions.

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "He was sloppy and careless, but I also think he learned a lesson."

    If he would apologize instead of whining about how he's being "smeared" I might believe that.

  • Jay (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack has a point: Wingard is a dunce and a liar. But I must be missing the relevance of this guy. He's a benchwarmer in a party where most of the starters have their headquarters where their hindquarters ought to be. (Abe Lincoln)

    It's not like he'll ever hold a position of responsibility, right?

  • (Show?)

    It's not like he'll ever hold a position of responsibility, right?

    You mean like the responsibility of representing constituents in the Oregon House..?

  • Jay (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Plagiarism with no economic motive attached is not in the same league as deliberate copyright infringement for profit."

    It is identical when the intent is to keep your job.

  • Jay (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "You mean like the responsibility of representing constituents in the Oregon House..?"

    His constituents -- if they knew -- would give him an A+

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    dartagnan: "I have been paying attention and I have never seen it."

    dartagnan, by 'paying attention' I mean paying attention to the debate. There's nothing to debate without alternate opinion, and if you're not seeking alternate opinion then, no - you haven't been paying attention.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack, please don't misunderstand my criticism. I appreciate your time-wasting, but I also am able to discern a political agenda, even one that doesn't rise to the level of grand political strategy.

    Your metaphorical shout that we who frequent this blog are not Rep. Wingard supporters does not relieve us of the responsibility of pointing out moral lapses on his part, nor make us gleeful character assassins for doing so. It also does not make your doe-eyed assurances of innocent intent on his part true.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well I'm glad to see that Michael Trigoboff Ph.D in Computer Science and an instructor at Portland Community College was one of the scientist consulting with Wingard.

    I was especially relieved to find that Mr. Trigoboff extensive experience in teaching "Introduction to Unix" and his background with a boat docking simulator was of value in unlocking the mysteries surrounding global climate change.

  • Ms Mel Harmon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wingard erred. When a mistake is made, one should admit the error and apologize, not deny the mistake. Honestly, we teach kids this. Responsible adults can acknowledge when they err---and it annoys everyone else when someone thinks they are above the rules of society and can try and deny a mistake rather than own up to it. Not to mention,it keeps the issue alive and it makes the person who made the mistake look like an irresponsible, egotistical idiot. Oh wait, we're talking about Matt Wingard....never mind.

  • (Show?)

    If I had any political ambitions, I wouldn't be wasting my time here.

    I'm never really sure why you're wasting your time here, Jack, but I'm glad you are--it's always enjoyable to see your comments.

    As to Kari's point, I don't see how this is defensible. A misdemeanor? Sure. But it's a misdemeanor. Blogs exist pretty much exactly to point out this kind of stuff. Kari's right--all Wingard had to do was say "I wanted to associate myself with what I thought was a astute piece and I failed to credit it; my bad." Then we all move on to why Evan Bayh.

    I doubt seriously you disagree with this point.

  • Michael Trigoboff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pedro: So Micheal, did Matt write the copy that he read or did someone else write it for him?

    (repeated 4 times)

    Learn to spell my name correctly, "Pedro," and just say what you have to say once. Even better, use a real name.

  • (Show?)

    (Michael, your comment was posted four times when Pedro posted. I removed the three extraneous ones.)

  • Jay (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If you're taking on Wingard for his dishonesty or swaggering lack of responsibility, let's start with his buffoonish assertion last week that Oregon businesses are packing up to leave the state because Measures 66-67 passed. Prove it, Matt.

    Anyway, the one institution in his district where they might actually care about Wingard's plagarism and cover-up is an Eagle newspaper that will continue to endorse him. Ask publisher Bill Cassel.

  • Glen Geller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This morning Kari was on KPOJ and mentioned this ongoing drama, Carl Wolfson asked if there were any opponents to Wingard and Kari mentioned Sandy Webb. Shortly thereafter Sandy phoned in to the show and commented on the issue, and told a little bit about herself. The audio can be found at 620KPOJ or on Facebook at Sandy Webb for State Representative.

  • Victoria Taft (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You're scared of Matt Wingard. Good.

  • (Show?)

    No, Jeff, I don't disagree with your point. I just thought the offense merited a more light-hearted response--sort of like Sarah Palin writing crib notes on her palm--than allegations of "theft of intellectual property."

    I probably wouldn't like it if someone took one of my Oregonian columns and read it as a speech without attribution, but I wouldn't kid myself that this constituted anything more serious than the unauthorized recycling of waste material.

  • Ms Mel Harmon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Victoria: "You're scared of Matt Wingard. Good."

    HAHAHAHAHAHA.....Oh, thank YOU, Victoria! My day has been stressful and I needed a good laugh.

  • Satchel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You're scared of Matt Wingard. Good.

    Scared he might come after me with a screwdriver, maybe.

  • Michael Trigoboff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott in Damascus: I was especially relieved to find that Mr. Trigoboff extensive experience in teaching "Introduction to Unix" and his background with a boat docking simulator was of value in unlocking the mysteries surrounding global climate change.

    I've got a Ph.D. in Computer Science, and 30 years of experience as a software engineer, all of which informs my perspective on computer models of the climate. On my web site (which you apparently found) there's a resume with items that are more relevant to the global warming issue than those that you chose to mention.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "there's a resume with items that are more relevant to the global warming issue than those that you chose to mention."

    http://spot.pcc.edu/~mtrigobo/MTrigoboffResume.pdf

    Ummm, no there's not.

  • Jay (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I doubt if Wingard wrote the copy himself. Who did?"

    Odds are good that the Cascade Policy Institute stitched it together for him and applied the requisite makeup.

    Their climate-change denier is tousle-haired Todd Wynn.

    But hey, Dave Lister could've sent it to him -- he's done the same for KUIK.

  • Michael Trigoboff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott in Damascus: "there's a resume with items that are more relevant to the global warming issue than those that you chose to mention."

    Ummm, no there's not.

    Since you've found my web site, read HARRY_READ_ME.txt from the East Anglia CRU "Climategate" leak. I put a copy of it there for my students to see. Tell us all what you think about the level of software engineering competence displayed in that file.

    And while you're at it, tell us about your qualifications in the fields of software engineering and computer science.

  • Marcia Turnquist (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Excuse me folks, but this attribution stuff doesn't even make sense. Have you listened to speeches on the floors of our legislative bodies? Apparently not. Uh, attribution isn't paramount. I can only imagine: "According to blankety blank, Americans are fed up with their current representation. Oh wait, I can't possibly SAY that, because I can't find an exact attribution. Shoot, I'd better sit down now, darn." What you're saying is ABSURD. There's plenty of attribution for everything Wingard said--AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR HIM TO INCLUDE IT. If you're interested, research it yourself. And as far as plagiarism, well gosh darn it, how many ways can a person say that water vapor is more important than CO2? Wait. Oh my God, DID I just plagiarize? Quick, somebody hide me before the blue plagiarism police arrest me. I guess if it's something that you don't like, gotta find something wrong with it. Oh well. It's what I'd expect on a site like this. Good luck with us Independents! Good luck with that global warming, eco-scare thing! Moving on to better places now where people aren't wearing blinders...

  • Pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Michael,

    I sincerely appologize for mis-spelling your name. I transposed the a and the e by mistake. The fault is entirely my own and in no way should reflect on Matt Wingard's plagiarism.

    By the way, did Matt Wingard actually write that speech?

  • Michael Trigoboff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pedro: By the way, did Matt Wingard actually write that speech?

    I have no idea. Given the parallel quotes listed here, perhaps not. I heard that Rep. Wingard now says he was quoting something but didn't have time for the attribution (he had only 3 mins, I think I read).

    In any case, it's not a matter of great concern to me. I care about what Rep. Wingard said, not whether it was original with him or not. He's a Rep., and I'm glad to hear a Rep. speaking truth to the dwindling power of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

  • Pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Michael Trigoboff wrote: I'm one of the "scientists" that Matt Wingard consulted. As a Ph.D. in Computer Science, I think that I would be seen to fit that description. He didn't make it up.

    Michael, I don't think Matt plagiarized those two opinion pieces. I think someone other than Matt Wingard is the plagiarist. Is this the correct scenario? The real plagiarist gave Matt the copy, he ran it by you and others who approved the content. Matt gave the speech on the floor not knowing that he was reading a plagiarized document.

  • Ct Lostaglia (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Asked this in the other post, but I think that might be dead. Does anyone know what is "Fair Use" and what are the guidelines for it? Does the application of copyrighted material for non-profit or educational purposes have protection under our Fair Use rules? Is this really intellectual theft, or any kind of plagiarism? Does one have to attribute an idea to its originator when not seeking a profit? I know Olberman et al, are required to reference quotations since they are in "the business"...and often times the punditry mask their references and attributions in mockery and masked dialogue, thereby avoiding committing "plagiarism". Is a congressman in "the business" and adherent to these rules?

    Just asking.

  • Michael Trigoboff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Pedro: Michael, I don't think Matt plagiarized those two opinion pieces. I think someone other than Matt Wingard is the plagiarist. Is this the correct scenario? The real plagiarist gave Matt the copy, he ran it by you and others who approved the content. Matt gave the speech on the floor not knowing that he was reading a plagiarized document.

    I have no idea about this scenario. Rep. Wingard ran his speech past a group of us, to make sure it didn't contain scientific/technical errors. That's all I know about it.

  • (Show?)

    So, Michael, what did your group of scientist buddies say about this lovely phrase in Wingard's speech?

    And solar activity is hugely important to our climate.

    Did anyone mention how utterly stupid that sentence is? Right up there with "and oxygen is hugely important to people."

  • Marcia Turnquist (unverified)
    (Show?)

    DJ at 10:44:52 am is correct. It aint plagiarism if he aint claiming it as his OWN ORIGINAL WORK. PLUS, attribution is NOT necessary when stuff is general knowledge and/or you can find it from multiple sources. Am I plagiarizing or lacking attribution if I say Washington, D.C. had record snowfall this winter? Or JFK was shot in Dallas? Or the ice is currently rebuilding in the Arctic Ocean? No. I certainly am not. And I don't care HOW many other people used similar wording before me! And I don't care whether I said it in my living room or on national TV. It still isn't plagiarism or lacking in attribution. Do you get it now????

  • Zarathustra is my real pseudonym (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Since Kari can't stay on topic either, I'll ask for an elaboration of how one is outraged by Wingard's plagiarism, yet can't take the 30 seconds to nuke the link spam for the myriad "buy an essay" sites that pop up here each night, like mushrooms after our spring rains. Obviously a number of posters think you should just ignore that bit, with Wingard, and get on with the content. That is PRECISELY the position BO has taken with link spammers. I disagree with both. Besides jettisoning intellectual integrity when it's convenient, is having it both ways another blog prerogative that others don't enjoy?

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "And while you're at it, tell us about your qualifications in the fields of software engineering and computer science."

    My partnership with my first software company ended with a sale to SAP. My current "position" is a controlling share and acting CEO of a Business Intelligence / BPM enterprise solution that been deployed in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. I also hold multiple degrees including from the same alma mater as Kari.

    And no, we don't use such low level code such as the classes you teach in Unix or Java.

  • Bronch O'Humphrey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott in Damascus for the win!

  • (Show?)

    DJ at 10:44:52 am is correct. It aint plagiarism if he aint claiming it as his OWN ORIGINAL WORK. PLUS, attribution is NOT necessary when stuff is general knowledge and/or you can find it from multiple sources. Am I plagiarizing or lacking attribution if I say Washington, D.C. had record snowfall this winter? Or JFK was shot in Dallas? Or the ice is currently rebuilding in the Arctic Ocean? No. I certainly am not. And I don't care HOW many other people used similar wording before me! And I don't care whether I said it in my living room or on national TV. It still isn't plagiarism or lacking in attribution. Do you get it now????

    When one stands up and gives a speech without attributing material to another source, the defacto inference is that the material is the work of speaker (or the speaker's paid staff writers). That's why honest people with integrity actually cite sources when they use material generated by someone else.

    Matt Wingard (or his paid staff) stole the intellectual property of somebody else. This is fact. At the very least, Wingard owes an apology and an explanation, rather than lying and obfuscation.

  • (Show?)

    Z, I clean up link spam every single day. I apologize if I'm not as speedy as you would like. We're also about to transition away from our blog provider, TypePad, in part because their filters have broken down.

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Carla Come Lately: "Matt Wingard (or his paid staff) stole the intellectual property of somebody else."

    I repeat, Carla didn't hop on the plagiarism bandwagon for a full three days until Kari raised the topic. That's because she was busy debunking the oft repeated "stolen intellectual propery" with the bookmarks she made the last time the oft repeated "stolen intellectual property" showed up here at BO.

  • Jay (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Legislators' email is public record. Whoever sent him the plagarized version, as well as comments from his panel of experts are probably still sitting there. Intriguing eh...

  • Jake Leander (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Methinks all this hot air is warming the climate.

  • LarryMo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Per Dr. Tigoboff (above) the provenance of the speech doesn't matter to him, the content was what mattered.

    Dr. Trigoboff - if a student submitted a term paper to you with the identical "fingerprints" (ie - very minor wording changes, total lack of attribution)...would you accept the paper or reject it as stolen?

    Idea theft is theft. It is egregious. For Wingard and his spokespeople to say this is no big deal only shows how out of touch they are.

    Wingard is a thief, a liar and a cheat.

  • whatsuporegon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Copied from the Oregonlive.com website, publishing an article from the Hillsboro Argus:

    "It’s amazing to me that somebody blogging in their underwear from a basement of their mom’s house can make a vicious personal smear on their Web site,” he [Wingard]said.

    <h2>I never realized this is how Kari worked! Funny.</h2>

connect with blueoregon