Our FAQ has been plagiarized by a web page belonging to The Times of India group. Yes, we're surprised, even though people steal from us all the time. A facsimile of the plagiarizing page is preserved here; a PDF file of the same is available for download as well. (The original page used Shockwave/Flash and other gizmos, so the screen shot is not rendered exactly, but the important contents are clearly seen. Observe the first six questions and answers, and compare with our FAQ.)
Around the middle of February, it was brought to our attention by Malolan Cadambi
that a web page at the Indiatimes portal
seemed to bear strong similarities to our FAQ. The undersigned sent e-mail to an
address at the Times of India website, as well as posting a strong
note of protest and indignation to the moderated guestbook at
Indiatimes--notice the link at the bottom of their page gratuitously asking readers to "oblige"
(sic) their guestbook. (Evidently, along with better ethics,
the ToI people need some remedial classes in elementary English
composition as well.)
An exposé of the ToI's shenanigans was also posted
to the Dvaita mailing list as well
as to several newsgroups including soc.culture.indian, on the 17th of
February, 2002.
There was no response to these events. Later, we contacted the
media watchdog website The Hoot, and were promised a look into the
matter. Shortly thereafter, the undersigned discovered that on
the ToI's page some of the prose
about Islam (which had been inexplicably mixed with the stolen content
from our FAQ) was also plagiarized, this time from the soc.religion.islam FAQ. Another
posting, a followup to the previous, was made, and a separate announcement was made on the moderated
newsgroup soc.religion.islam. In response to the follow-up, one
poster suggested taking the ToI to court.
Not too long after this, the media watchdog website The Hoot published its
report on the plagiarism--there had been no response
from the ToI.
A few weeks later, the Times of India sent a lame, if not
disingenuous, response to The Hoot's editor (who was wrongly presumed
to be male), which went like this:
From: Sapna
To: sevantininan
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: clarification
Dear Mr Sevanti Ninan,
This is with reference to your letter to Mr
Dilip Padgoankar, EME, Time of India, dated February 20, 2002 in which you
claimed that indiatimes had used some matter from your web site. I would like
to inform you that the said content does not reside on our site. The matter was
under investigation, hence the delay in replying.
Regards
Sapna Dogra
It appears that the ToI, that great representative of the fourth
estate, is now trying to claim that the plagiarized page never
existed. Or perhaps, by denying in the present tense, they are
merely implying that the past sin never happened. (Taking a cue
perhaps from the famous "there is not..." response by Bill Clinton in response to Jim Lehrer?)
In any event, if Dilip Padgoankar, "EME, Time (sic!) of India," or anyone else, believes that simply removing the page and denying (implying?) it ever existed will work, he is sadly mistaken, because too many people saw it, and our archived facsimile as well as the public record on google.com's newsgroup archives prove it. It would simply be best that Dilip Padgoankar, "EME, Time (sic!) of India," and others outgrow their ostrich-like tendencies, make an honest admission and apology, and move on. Otherwise, they will have to learn the truth of the Bhagavad Gîtâ's statement, `sambhâvitasya câkîrtirmaranâdatiricyate' (even death is to be preferred over possible dishonor).
Created on March 17, 2002. Last modified on March 26, 2023.