Print

---

Dear Ken and others!

If we see "this" from an other point!
One of the design problems is the plagiarist, the people - company, 
that are steeling a designers piece of work.
Haw do we know how is behind the product, the graphic piece of work, 
the e-mail ore even a person (What can you do with surgery!?).
In the Swedish television they have presented a program about design 
and Form (In Swedish: "Bästa formen") The last program was about 
plagiarism and haw to deal with that. They informed the us that Great 
Britain is dealing strongly with that.
In a more philosophic way how is how and what is what!?
Are this a design problem. Are design about making "fakes" ore is it 
about promoting the "real".
The indignation from some of the participants on the list point out a 
symptom: "Wee do not have control!"
Again who is sending the e-mail?
My opinion are that we as ordinary people, consumers, also have a 
responsibility. Always ask the question: "is this real", "is this 
true", "haw do I know".
What I mean to say is that also the "buyer" has a responsibility when 
it comes to plagiarism.
The reaction on the list is clear, we want to know how is how.
In that respect design has to be understandable and clear!
So Ken, you have giving al of us a very realistic example on the 
problem, thank you!

I have the some opinion as Rosan Chow, Ken please continue to be on the 
list, pleas make us be aware on the facts that  the world are real even 
if it seam's to be a fake!

Regards
Dag

Dag Holmgren, Professor and Designer SID,
School of Engineering
Box 1026
SE-551 11 Jönköping
Tel+46 36 15 64 23
Fax +46 36 34 03 75
Mobil +46 705 30 21 90
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

15 dec 2004 kl. 21.02 skrev Ken Friedman:

> Dear All,
>
> The posts of the last few days and a question directed to me leave me
> feeling I ought to make a brief response.
>
> On October 21, I apologized to the list and I wrote an explanation.
>
> My experience gives me much to reflect on. I was not mindful. I
> should have thought more deeply and reflectively before taking this
> action. This was not research, it was not a carefully considered
> ploy, and it was not an experiment. I created what would have been
> called a pen name (nom de plume) in another context. I created a
> false identity, a voice, or a persona. I would not dignify my
> creation with a label as grand as "net persona" or "avatar." I
> thought of this creation as I would have thought of a pen name in the
> era of paper communication.
>
> This is where the problem comes in.
>
> We are a community because we participate in dialogue together. We
> use a technology that brings us closer together than paper might do.
> We participate in a time frame that would never have been possible on
> paper. We maintain nearly instant communication despite our global
> geographic range. Many of us know each other, and we have many sets
> of relations.
>
> All of this gives rise to a sense of community, and this sense of
> community makes an invented voice inappropriate in the context of our
> list community.
>
> I did not reflect deeply enough on these issues. I used a pen name to
> solve what I considered a problem. In doing so, I created another
> problem, perhaps a series of problems, with nested and recursive
> difficulties hidden layered within them.
>
> At one point, someone posing as "Alan Sokal" asked whether Cindy and
> I might be the same person. Both "Cindy" and I received off-list
> queries on this question. I bought a little time with a misleading
> answer and then I posted an explanation and apology.
>
> It may seem inappropriate, but I distinguish between the deception of
> using a pen name and the act of lying. Under my pen name, I deceived
> people as to the identity of my authorship. I reinforced that
> deception using my own name. At the same time, nothing in Cindy's
> contributions to the list took place outside the bounds of what I saw
> as acceptable behavior. As Keith and David wrote, the unacceptable
> aspect of this act was deceiving people in a community based on trust.
>
> This was inappropriate.
>
> Explanation is not a justification. I should not have used a created
> voice or pen name on this list.
>
> Again, I apologize to you all for this act.
>
> At some point I may have more to say ... I request your understanding
> for the fact that I want to reflect deeply before I say more.
>
> Rosan asked the list owners for leadership. It seems to me they have
> provided it.
>
> They stated in their post that created voices and noms de plume
> (personas or avatars) are not acceptable on this list.
>
> This is a new ruling. This issue never came up before I announced my
> deception and revealed myself. List owners Keith Russell and David
> Durling have ruled on this issue now.
>
> I agree with their post. I could probably add a few more reasons as
> to why I feel it was a mistake to create a fictitious voice on the
> list. I participate here as Ken Friedman. Given this fact,
> subscribing as a second person through an invented voice was a
> mistake.
>
> Rosan's call for leadership raises two issues. There is a distinction
> between opinions and decisions on list protocol. Rosan's opinion is
> equal to that of any other list member. Where it comes to protocol
> rulings, JISC sets the standards for all JISCMAIL lists. JISC
> delegates full authority for list protocol to JISCMAIL list owners.
> They "own" the list on behalf of JISC.
>
> All of us have the right to an opinion. The list owners have never
> debated that. The incident Rosan mentions involved a protocol ruling,
> not a personal, scholarly, or professional opinion. The protocol
> ruling governed the process of an on-line conference. In that
> context, the owners asked a list member to refrain from list conduct
> that might have been perfectly fine in another context. The list is
> an open forum -- the fact that some activities are not permitted on
> certain occasions does not change the quality of the list as an open
> forum.
>
> In this case, the list owners have given the leadership that Rosan
> requests. They have now ruled that created voices are not acceptable
> on PhD-Design.
>
> For my part, I agree entirely with Keith and David's letter. While
> the social, cultural, rhetorical, and design issues embedded in the
> process of creating and activating a voice are fascinating, my
> primary response is as a person who created such a voice in an
> inappropriate context.
>
> This was a mistake. I regret it.
>
> Before ending, I will answer the question Alec asked about what I
> would have done if I discovered that someone had addressed me through
> an avatar or fictitious person. It happened here on the list. I can
> answer by pointing to the list archives.
>
> On October 18, a list member writing as the physicist "Alan Sokal"
> posted the query on my identity. The post came from a false email
> address attributed to the UN arms inspector "Hans Blix." Since I knew
> the real Alan Sokal did not write this, I knew I was answering a
> fictitious person. I have read several of his books and articles and
> some years ago, I exchanged letters with him. The style was not his.
> Based on orthographic style and language patterns, I have my own
> ideas concerning the real identity of the person who posted the
> query. Perhaps one day our "Alan Sokal" will step forward to discuss
> his or her part in these events.
>
> As it is, I did not worry about the real authorship of the query. The
> question was reasonable. I treated it respectfully and I gave a full
> and honest answer to the list.
>
> How would I have treated this in other circumstances? I appreciated
> what Susan wrote about me. I hope that I would act appropriately in
> the circumstances that might emerge.
>
> For now, I hope you will accept my apologies and accept my decision
> to say no more at this time.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ken Friedman
>