How can I be less ridiculous in future?

Did these individuals identify themselves? If so, what names did they use? Were they regular participants here at Degreeinfo, or people that you had never heard of?

You might try giving their e-mail addresses to the administrators, so that they can be compared to the list of registered participants here.

I have a feeling that this may be some kind of attack directed at Degreeinfo, perhaps inspired by the GMA thread on the main forum.

 

Yes, they identified themselves, and had the courtesy to BCC me on their emails to ABC News and my publisher.

Personally, I think I just annoyed some people with my style.



------------------
Quinn

 

I don't think it's directed at DegreeInfo. I think it's directed at me. Occam's Razor.



------------------
Quinn

 

One positive side, if ABC (though CBC would probably been more appropraite) does a "expose'" it will be some good free publicity!

 

"Small time nobody makes eccentric choices. News at 11."

Yes, I can see it all now...

------------------
Quinn

 

I agree with Bill that more than likely these were people trying to make degreeinfo.com bad. Even if some one here disagreed with you they would not be emailing ABC, etc. Also remember even if they use a regular's name unless they are using the same email address as the regular they could be anyone.

------------------
Best Regards,
Dave Hayden

 

Barry, exactly what would you like us to do? There are over 1,200 registered members of degreeinfo.com, most of whom choose to remain in stealth mode. We have no way to control what they do outside of this board, nor would I want to even if I could. Blaming this board for what some people wrote in e-mails is akin to blaming us for what websites they surf.

You may be upset with these unknown people's actions (I have no idea who they are), but trying to pin it on us is beyond a stretch, it's just plain silly.


Bruce

 

As most know I am certainly a pro-RA/GAAP advocate, however, I wasn't even aware that Quinn's degrees were not RA. What is really amazing is that given the nature of some on this board, the issue hasn't already surfaced. For example, think of how some like Neil Hynd, John Gray, Walter Martin, etc., have been maligned over their non-RA doctorates. I suppose it comes with the territory, Quinn.

Russell

 

This is so bizarre that I think Bill may be on to something. Perhaps this is all to make a point (not about Quinn, but at Quinn's expense)?

I think Quinn should consider listing the names (or email addresses) of his inquisitors here.

 

Oh, OK.



------------------
Quinn

 

Silly huh? I see it quite different.

I am *not* blaming this board. Bruce, are you telling me that you don't see any link with this action and another thread?
http://www.degreeinfo.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002465.html

Are you attempting to infer that this little episode had not been influenced by that exact thread? Threads like that establish the norm. Why do you think a few of us were more than a little upset about it?

Let's at least be honest about this. Now we've got a smear campaign going on - with Quinn as the undeserving target. That exact thread started it.

If you need some education re: basic sociology, I can refer you to some good DL programs. Pay close attention to the chapters that discuss leadership (both expert and hierarchical power) and the creation of social norms. Then go look in the closest mirror.

 

I expected more, Pastor. So you think this is OK then??

 

Of course the irony of ironies is that this self proclaime defender of education would probably have no difficulty with a "4wk BA" or the UoP.

 

Here ... let me put an end to any speculation in this regard:

> From: {removed by qtj}
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Fake Credentials
>
>
> I recently became aware that you are looking for people who have
> unaccredited degrees that are in the military. Although this person
> is not in the military, he is an author and appears to pass himself
> off as educated. His name is Quinn Tyler Jackson and you can visit
> his website at: http://members.shaw.ca/qjackson/. This person is
> trying to pass himself off as a scientist of all things.
>
> Several of us on an internet distance education board have
> discussions regarding distance education and unaccredited degrees. A
> well known figure in the distance education world, Dr. John Bear,
> asked for help on the discussion board in finding people who may fit
> this criteria for an show you plan on doing. I hope this helps.




------------------
Quinn

 

Well, the matter is being dealt with privately to the extent of the identities of the individuals concerned. I went "public" with the generalities because I felt there was some educational value in doing so.

A few moments ago, I received an email from one of the five, with an apology that I take to be sincere. And then, another email, with a retraction. They have, it appears, meditated upon the particulars, and realized the crusade was ill-founded.

Had I made these names public, I would have shamed these individuals for having made a decision based upon their consciences. We, all of us, make mistakes. I do not believe that witholding identifying details from public view has been a mistake on my part, nor do I believe bringing the generalities up here has been a mistake.

It has shown that a hair-trigger has great potential to do harm. Fortunately, no one here has been harmed to date.

Cheers,


------------------
Quinn

 

At first, I assumed that this was a rhetorical question. However, I'll answer it as if it were a legitimate question.

This is what should be done.

First - as leaders, refuse to initiate or participate these types of witch hunts.

Second - admit it when you participate in an activity that creates damage to other individuals. Don't try run from accountability. (Don't we ask the same from mill apologists?)

It's that simple.

The effect? You will establish the norm by example.

Obviously, you can do little about the another of the 1200 board users. But at least you haven't led the charge.

This goes beyond just the hierarchical 'officials' of the board - those who exercise literal power (banning, removing threads, setting policy, etc). It includes those who leverage expert power (percieved DL experts). As well, it includes opinion leaders.

No, I don't blame the board. A few individuals did this and should carry the lion's share of the blame. However, a share of the blame belongs to the individual leaders who established the the norm by example in the previous thread (and in a similar thread a few months back).

Another share belongs to those who rushed to "expose" people.

A smaller share goes to those who failed to speak up - even though they might have had a queezy feeling about it. (I suspect that hero worship had something to do with the later.)

Nope. The board didn't do this. But this is how norms work within communites - even virtual ones. If the leaders of this board really want to make degreeinfo.com something special (and I think it's very close), then stop this nonsense.

Barry Foster

 

They attempted to shame you to a far greater extent than you would have shamed them by identifying them here. But I guess we are instructed to "turn the other cheek."

Groetjes,
Gert

 

I am in total agreement here with you Barry. I recall a novel when in military school called "The Most Dangerous Game." (Joel Mcrea?) I have seen a little of this game going on in recent days on this board.

I deplore witch hunts, of any kind, regardless of reason. I want to see Quin continue to post to this board, as he always has the most thought provoking things to say. Actually, I would like to mentor him when I begin writing a book.

I have a question to the board now. What is considered a "scholarly" paper? I ask this because in the NYT today, an article appeared regarding a famous scientist who is well known for scholarly papers. What does that mean?

 

It means the papers are probably very poorly written, and he doesn't get paid very well for them.

(No, seriously, folks...: "Scholarly papers" usually means "papers that appear in a peer-reviewed academic journal." Papers that appear in a mainstream magazine, no matter how scholarly the papers themselves might be, are generally considered "trade" articles, at least in my experience.)


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

You can mentor me anytime you want, KidDL. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I won't be going away anytime soon. I have an interest in DL. I one day wish to earn an Ed.D. or Ph.D. in Education in order to be able to facilitate alternative education for extremely gifted adults. This dream/goal is on hold for a while, but I still try to follow the trends.

As for what a "scholarly paper" is...

It depends on the discipline, but for the most part, a scholarly paper is a paper presented in a particular format and style, intended for a mostly scholarly readership. You can go to www.citeseer.com and fine any number of such papers in the CS field, available as PDF for a simple click.

In the sciences, SPs typically are in the form:

1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Findings (sometimes called Results)
4. Conclusions
5. Areas for Future Work
6. References

Sections 3 through 5 are not always called that, and sometimes are combined. (For instance, "Conclusions and Areas for Future Work.")

The abstract summarizes what the paper is about and why it is important, and is usually very brief. It should give an immediate reason as to why the paper deserves to be read.

The introduction brings the reader up to speed on the importance of the results that are going to be discussed. This is done in any number of ways, but often covers the literature (fancy term for 'other people's scholarly work in this area') very briefly, as it relates to the paper at hand.

The findings/results goes into some detail about what has been done and what particular new results have been arrived at. The amount of detail and the approach taken depends on the field. In a math paper, this will be a list of theorems followed by their proofs. In a technology paper, the results will be quantified results -- testing times, descriptions of data processed, results of the processing, et cetera.

The conclusions drawn from the findings are then discussed, and finally, the author(s) often state what they feel are the next areas of work to be done. This is done both to explain to others what they themselves hope to achieve later, and to point out which areas of the research were not properly addressed. (This is where the honest researcher admits what has yet to be done.) This also points other researchers down future research paths -- it leaves breadcrumbs for others.

Finally, a formal list of references is given. All of the other parts of the paper have interspersed references to "the literature" that support statements made in the paper. This section points the reader to where to find those pearls.

Hope that helps. Others may have comments on this.

------------------
Quinn