[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Marcello Pagano <[email protected]> |

To |
[email protected] |

Subject |
Re: st: significant digits format |

Date |
Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:23:36 -0500 |

Dear Listers,

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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: significant digits format***From:*David Souther <[email protected]>

**Re: st: significant digits format***From:*Roy Wada <[email protected]>

**References**:**st: significant digits format***From:*Jacob Wegelin <[email protected]>

**Re: st: significant digits format***From:*Roy Wada <[email protected]>

**Re: st: significant digits format***From:*Roy Wada <[email protected]>

**Re: st: significant digits format***From:*Ben Jann <[email protected]>

**Re: st: significant digits format***From:*Roy Wada <[email protected]>

**Re: st: significant digits format***From:*David Souther <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: significant digits format** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: outreg2 and incorrect asterisks?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: significant digits format** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: significant digits format** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |