Marcello is right...I didn't see his message before my latest post. I
wasn't trying to keep this going beyond his post.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Marcello Pagano
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Listers,
>
> Before this `Wadagate N+1', for who knows what N, gets too far, let us hope
> that before such vituperative labels are used some care is taken at deciding
> the justification of the accusations. This might be interesting if we were
> comparing the contributions of John Napier, and ironically, another Swiss,
> Joost Burgi, vis a vis the invention of logarithms, but before we ask either
> of them to apologize to Roy Wada for copying his idea, let us realize that
> the two lines of code in question owe their genesis to Napier/Burgi and that
> subsequently it is the most obvious way to solve the *same* problem. I hope
> that Listers will look at the rest of the two sets of code put forth by Wada
> and Ben Jann to see whether the approaches are even the same, other than the
> similarity of this one line, let alone similarity in code in general, before
> expressing opinions and accusations.
>
> Statalist is not intended as a location for public catharsis. Rather it is
> intended as a way to help with Stata and statistical advancement. We
> sympathize with the need some people feel for emotional outlets, but this is
> not the best place for it and it is certainly not fair on the targets. So
> please Listers, show some restraint.
>
> Thanks,
>
> m.p.
>
>
> David Souther wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Roy Wada <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No, Ben. You are acting like a student who gets caught and complains
>>> that he did not understand that paraphrasing someone's work without
>>> citation is plagiarism.
>>>
>>> Yours: local left = int(log10(abs(`value'))+1) // digits before
>>> dp
>>> Mine: local left=int(ln(abs(`input'))/ln(10)+1)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> At some level every program is probably inspired by some part of other
>> programs.
>> Both of these look exactly like the variations of formulas I've seen
>> used in Excel or VB script to get at this same issue (though the excel
>> version looks more like
>> "=ROUND(value,sigfigs-(1+INT(LOG10(ABS(value))))" ). A google search
>> of a formula for significant digits turns up both of these approaches
>> in Excel & VB (as I imagine it would in other stats packages). I
>> think if you compare packages with similar functionality in Stata,
>> there will be lots of similar approaches to create that same
>> functionality--there are really only so many ways that you can do
>> things in Stata (at least, do them efficiently).
>>
>> Ben has acknowledged that his programs were influenced by
>> outreg/outreg2 (in fact, it says it was 'stolen' (flippantly, I
>> imagine) in the .ado file--though I have no idea if this
>> acknowledgement came after some prodding by Roy), and Ben has
>> indicated in other postings that he was building upon existing
>> knowledge. That is something that is desirable and accepted in
>> academic work; what's the benefit of starting from scratch every time?
>> If Ben wanted to create an outreg-like program with a different
>> syntax approach & different goals for its functionality that he found
>> useful, why should he be expected to reinvent the wheel blindly in
>> order to arrive at something with overlapping functionality ? Though
>> I'm not an expert on either package, I tend to prefer the syntax and
>> output that esttab/estout creates, I'm glad that these packages were
>> created.
>>
>> What's more, I haven't seen any guidelines on Stata or SSC (or in
>> open-source programming in general) that defines how authors must cite
>> others' open-source work or that prohibits someone from using other
>> code to help recreate functionality. I don't see that you have any
>> kind of creative commons or copyright on your adofile.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> By your own words, this is a "stolen" work. This makes it a
>>> plagiarized work. And that makes you a plagiarist. This is
>>> unprofessional and academically dishonest. It needs to stop.
>>>
>>> The prattle about being similar or not similar is beneath you.
>>> -sigdig- is a rewriting of SignificantDigits. I don't keep tabs on
>>> what you do. I take people at their word, but your words fail me.
>>>
>>> You are fooling yourself and many others if you say that you are
>>> making useful contributions by deliberately knocking off other
>>> people's work to the point of extracting codes and inserting them into
>>> yours, putting your name on top, and misrepresenting yourself as the
>>> contributing author.
>>>
>>> It seems you are unable to correct these errors on your own. Based on
>>> the earlier post, you seem to think there was nothing wrong. Listen to
>>> me carefully because you don't seem to appreciate the enormity of what
>>> you have done. You have a history of taking other people's work and
>>> misrepresenting yourself as the orignal author.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -esttab- is a plagiarized work. It is based largely on -outreg2-. This
>>> was something that you could not have written on your own. It would be
>>> nice to if you could have, but based on your other work this was
>>> apparently something that was beyond you. What you did was blatant and
>>> shameful. So shameful in fact that I don't know why you are making me
>>> come out and say these things.
>>>
>>> -estout- is loosely base on the original -outreg-. By distributing the
>>> program without giving adequate credit to the original source (not
>>> given in the help file, not in the website, not the handouts and
>>> presentations floating around), you have plagiarized John's work. This
>>> has greatly hurt John's reputation, giving rise to the impression that
>>> there was something wrong with his work.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus far, you've presented two similar lines for a common approach to
>> a formula as your evidence. I think these kinds of accusations demand
>> that you give us more. Where's the line-by-line or
>> subroutine-by-subroutine comparisons of code that definitively prove
>> these statements? If you really think the code is that similar, file a
>> DMCA takedown.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This was completely untrue and highly unfair. Unlike you, John was
>>> highly original. I admire originality. I don't expect you to share my
>>> values, but I do have problems with people who do not understand any
>>> of this yet wishes to present themselves as a scholar. Scholar you are
>>> not. Scholars respect the integrity of other's work. Author you are
>>> not. Authorship does not consist of "stolen" work.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think the Stata community is pretty lucky that authors like Roy,
>> Ben, and John would create these useful and important packages, but I
>> also think we are lucky that Stata allows a forum for us to exchange
>> and share these add-ons free of charge. Not all stats software
>> companies allow this sort of thing. In this sort of environment, I
>> expect that there will be similar/redundant packages that come about
>> and it is up to the user to decide which package works best for them.
>>
>> *
>> * For searches and help try:
>> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
>> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
>> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>>
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
