Subscribe our newsletter and get notifications to stay update
New York Times’ plagiarism consultant Jonathan Bailey released his “full analysis” of the allegations against Vice President Kamala Harris and found them “more serious” than he initially believed. “At the time, I was unaware of a full dossier with additional allegations, which led some to accuse the New York Times of withholding that information from me.However, the article clearly stated that it was my ‘initial reaction’ to those allegations, not a complete analysis,” Bailey wrote on Plagiarism Today Wednesday.
“Today, I reviewed the complete dossier prepared by Dr.Stefan Weber, whom I have covered before.
I also performed a peer review of one of his papers in 2018.”“With this new information, while I believe the case is more serious than I commented to the New York Times, the overarching points remain.While there are problems with this work, the pattern points to sloppy writing habits, not a malicious intent to defraud,” he added. “Is it problematic? Yes.
But it’s also not the wholesale fraud that many have claimed it to be.It sits somewhere between what the two sides want it to be,” he said.While Bailey continued to argue the examples were more akin to sloppy work or negligence rather than malice from Harris, he conceded some, specifically two paragraphs copied directly from Wikipedia, were clear examples of plagiarism.“To be clear, that is plagiarism.
It’s compounded by the fact that Wikipedia is typically not seen as a reliable source, and, according to Weber, there was an error in the information,” Bailey wrote.He concluded, “Ultimately, I recognize that this view will make absolutely no one happy.I don’t feel that the book is a product of wholesale malicious plagiarism, nor do I think it’s free from problems.
No matter your side, this will be an unsatisfactory answer.”In a New York Times article dissecting the claims, Bailey claimed the examples amounted “to an error and not an intent to defraud.�...