A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
1%er turns out to be massive fraud once basic scrutiny is applied. Many such cases, I’m sure.
Seriously though, how closely are people looking at these “prestige (read: nepotism) scholars?”
There could be a great many nepo scholarship papers that were not reviewed closely.
It was shown recently that many scientific papers are full of crap and that the entire process of reviewing them is full of loopholes, allowing for a perpetual "I copy from you, you copy from me" type of mutual gratification that has nothing to do with actual science.
The whole system encourages such behavior: you need to publish to get a position, you need to publish to get funded, you need to publish to get exposure, your university and your department need you to publish to climb the rankings... In the end, there just isn't enough material to justify that many publications or to allow a proper peer-review of all papers
There’s a bit more as well. Corporations have been closing their research labs over several decades and chasing short term profits over longer-term-payoff research. All that risk is passed onto university research labs (and the grad students that actually do the work) and heavily subsidized by the government. There is then little to no incentive for a professor to care about teaching and is rewarded for bringing in grant money. Students incentives are papers (and the prestige that follows) and the machine is born.
Basically, the neoliberal project is moving the risk of research out of corporations and the public pays for it.
What if billionaires are subject to personal and professional review by an independent committee each year around tax time? If they are found at fault, they get a special super tax that year based on their gross total wealth valuation. Financial incentives to at least act like good people might be enough to help curb their shitty anti-everyone-else behavior.
What if poor people stopped trying to think up creative ways to allow billionaires to continue to exist?
They literally exist at your expense (and mine!), stop licking the boot that is literally stomping on your throat.
But it tastes expensiiiiiivvvvvuh!
What if any kind of wealth over a few millions is just taken from them by force.
They don't deserve, they either stole it or their daddy did.
Good idea, but one of those "60-80% of the population wants it but only 10-20% of the ones who are SUPPOSED TO be representing them would ever dream of it" kind of deals 😮💨
That would be so cool, and that will also never ever ever happen.
Hypocrites gonna hypocrite
Generally Overt Projection at it again.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The wife of Bill Ackman, the hedge fund billionaire who accused Claudine Gay of being a plagiarist and led calls for her resignation as Harvard president, is now facing allegations of plagiarism herself.
Neri Oxman, a prominent former professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has apologized after Business Insider identified multiple instances in which she lifted passages from other scholars’ work without proper attribution in her 2010 dissertation.
In response to Gay’s resignation, Ackman published a 4,000-word post on X – formerly Twitter – in which he criticized diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as well as complained about “racism against white people”.
Gay had faced plagiarism allegations over her 1997 dissertation, but she requested corrections and was cleared of academic misconduct by a three-member independent review board.
Ackman additionally criticized Business Insider and the reporters at the publication who authored the story investigating Oxman, saying he would spearhead plagiarism reviews against the outlet’s staff.
Some consider her a celebrity in the field of architecture and design, and her new company – named Oxman – was in the middle of a soft launch when she issued her apology in response to Business Insider’s reporting.
The original article contains 535 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Hard truths cut both ways, ser Davos
This is hilarious. Let’s see what else the media digs up on ol’ holier than thou Bill Ackman. Those who live in glass houses…
Those who live in glass houses… shouldn’t throw stones.
Or to get Biblical…
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
hbomberguy strikes again
I thought that many white male academics dissertations would get a bit of attention but a woman? Well I suppose someone has to be first.