Cardiff County Court has said it cannot making a ruling over Doctor Mike Reddy being biased and outside his area of academic expertise because it believes academic judgement is not judicious. According to the Times Higher Education Supplement, it is!
The fact that University of South Wales lecturers make statements that could be perceived as bias, but that it is not illegal to do so, means that in my honest opinion no student should apply for a PhD at the University of South Wales as they will have no recourse if one of its lecturers makes statements that are biased or false, because they can claim such statements amount to ‘academic judgement’.
If students were able to apply to different universities, yet take their course in a specific geographical location, then it would be very unlikely in my view that the University of South Wales would allow lecturers like Doctor Mike Reddy to make statements that could be perceived as biased or untrue because students would go to their competitors because the University of South Wales would not have the geographical monopoly that they have now. The only way to ensure fair access to higher education is competition because the universities that act oppressively would be forced to be dissolved because students would no longer have to use them like they forced to at present if they wish to study in a particular locality.
If Doctor Mike Reddy can get away with making disparaging statements about my work even if those statements would have invalidated his chances if applied to his work, then how many other students are being denied an education as a result? If the students of Treforest vote for me, I will push for reform of the University of South Wales so that lecturers like Doctor Mike Reddy are not able to get away with saying things that affect a student’s chance of getting a degree by relying on reference to ‘academic judgement’ when other university rules, like the dignity at study policy, should be coming into play.
Cardiff County Court has given until 17 February 2017 to submit additional paperwork to account for the complexities of my case against Doctor Mike Reddy for making a biased assessment of my PhD proposal and commenting on something outside of his area of expertise.
I got a distinction in every one of the modules between level 4 and level 7 that Mike Reddy taught me on. One of them involved litigating on a matter of negligence, as it happened.
I think it would have been nice to have had a full house with Mike Reddy supervising me at level 8 – doctoral level – but instead of him supervising me as he promised, evidence I obtained under the Data Protection Act 1998, which I also learned about on his Multimedia Studies degree, shows he actively made statements to my detriment, and now it is unfortunately for the court to determine whether those statements amount to negligence.
A former tutor of mine, Doctor Mike Reddy, has been refusing to give former students references. Previously I had been refused a reference by Professor Guoping Liu even though my taxes pay his wages.
My last degree was awarded in 2011 by Aberystwyth University, and they have given me references since then as many universities require a reference from the institution where your last degree was awarded and so if the last degree someone got that they were taught by Mike Reddy was 2002 – when I was awarded my first degree – then he should provide references until that person is awarded another degree.
It is disgusting that universities talk about ‘commencement’ at graduation ceremonies, yet in the case of Doctor Mike Reddy and Professor Guoping Liu, they have no intention of aiding with that.
It is disgusting that Doctor Mike Reddy is refusing to provide references to students who studied on programmes he designed or delivered.
Both Doctor Mike Reddy and Professor Guoping Liu, and any other lecturer funded by the Welsh tax payer, are a total disgrace if they are not willing to do all they can to help the university’s students and graduates get on in the world.
It will be part of my election campaign for the Welsh Assembly to require universities to provide value for money.
How is it value for money for Doctor Mike Reddy to have outputted less than 10 academic papers since he got his PhD in 1999?
And equally, if Professor Guoping Liu is not willing to help Welsh graduates reach as high a status in an international body like the IEEE at the same time as being paid by the Welsh tax payer, then he should go back to China where he will likely be welcomed by other human rights deniers.
They say imitation is the best form of flattery, but in academia it is called plagiarism if that imitation is not credited. One of the most recent examples of plagiarism against myself is Erin Buckels’s paper ‘Trolls just want to have fun.’
Last year I had a paper published called, ‘The effect of deindividuation of the Internet Troller on Criminal Procedure implementation: An interview with a Hater.’ And now I have found that another researcher, Erin Buckels, has a paper ready for publication in Personality and Individual Differences (called ‘trolls just want to have fun’), which even the title copies a comment I made in a trolling tutorial! Erin Buckels’s paper made the following same findings as my paper using a quantitative rather than the qualitative approach I took:
- Identity was identified as a key issue, namely that ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure all played an important part in trolling.
- Machiavellianism, a vernacular term, is known to resemble anti-social personality disorder (as you ought to know).
- Sadism is identified as being a novel finding in this paper, but I referred to this in relation to “Callousness” in Table 1.
When I approached Erin Buckels about her not crediting me in her ‘trolls just want to have fun’ paper, this was the response Erin Buckels gave me:
It is unfortunate that you think it is appropriate to bully people into citing your papers. I will not be citing your paper as it is only tangentially related. Please do not contact me again.
My tutor on my Multimedia Studies degree between 2000 and 2002 was Doctor Mike Reddy who designed the JISC Plagiarism checker. He has influenced me a lot and its a shame that Erin Buckels is not willing to recognise the prior art of others who have already published in areas Erin Buckels failed to do a proper literature review with regards to – to do otherwise is plagiarism. I guess its quite difficult for people in the area of trolling and multimedia studies not to plagiarise me seeing as I was doing over 10 years ago what they think is new and cool now!
I was one of the students who took part in the development of the JISC plagiarism checker (JPC) – on the innovative Multimedia Studies degree run by plagiarism expert Doctor Mike Reddy. Based on what I know about the system I thought it might be interesting to suggest to students how to force some false positives in their submissions – not that I condone doing so!:
- Dealing with block quotes. The JPC checks for text in your essay against ones in existing databases and also how that text is formatted. If you get a block of text from another work and put it inside quotations and ensuring you cite it with the page number as is the norm, there is something you can do to alert the JPC:
- Put that block of text into another document;
- Format it with a custom style type;
- Copy and paste it back into the original document; and
- Manually change the fonts to match the one in the document while keeping the style tag from the other document.
- Dealing with links and citations. The JPC checks to see if there are any anchor tags in the document, such as where someone has lifted text from a website and pasted it directly into work so that the hyperlinks are still in the document but not visible. There is something you can do with your properly cited document to trigger the JPC:
- Find the hyperlink or DOI link for the paper or book you are citing. You might want to use the links to Amazon with your affiliate code;
- Selected your citation – e.g. Bishop (2007) – and add the anchor tag as a hyperlink; and
- Manually change the text so that it does not look like a hyperlink but as a normal part of the text.
- Exposing your tutor. The most damaging kind of trolling you can do with the JPC is to plagiarise your tutor’s notes. If it is their original work it is not a good idea, but if they basing it on others’ works without crediting them (i.e. plagiarising them) then quoting it as your own and justifying it by saying you copied their notes is one of the most daring ways to troll the JPC. There is an urban myth that this actually happened to one tutor and if you have the time to search for any part of their notes that are online but which they haven’t given a citation for then this could be the Maximum trolling possible with the JPC.
MOOC is an abbreviation for Massively Open Online Course. A MOOC in my view is just another buzzword puffed by Stephen Downes and George Siemens to sell stale bread as a new loaf.
At one point E-Learning 2.0 was the greatest thing going according to Stephen Downes and George Siemens, then it was Connectivism and now it seems it is MOOCs.
It appears to me they will do anything to try to get their re-jigging of old ideas on everyone’s lips to create a buzz that seasoned HCI experts who remember Computer based learning, Web-based training, then E-Learning coming into vogue should just laugh off.
One might ask how a MOOC is technologically any different from any open learning object system, such as HyperCard and MICROCOSM. To me it is little different to what I learned on my BSc(Hons) in Multimedia Studies between 2000 and 2002, a ground-breaking course by Dr Mike Reddy, which New York University and other ancient institutions are just starting to offer
It seems a MOOC is nothing other a Web-based non-portable SCORM object run by education establishments. How is it any more than branding for something the Open University has been doing with OpenLearn for decades?
I read on on the blog of Whitney Phillips, the English PhD graduate who misrepresented the flame trollers on 4chan as “trolls”, an article by her that she is apparently running a “new course” on New Media.
Well Whitney Phillips, welcome to the world of Multimedia Studies! I did this module over ten years ago! In fact I did two courses on New Media – One called ‘New Media Cutures’ and one called ‘New Media Societies’.
They were put together as a way to bridge the Multimedia Computing modules accredited by BCS – the Chartered Institute for IT with the Media Studies and Media Practice Modules. The pioneer behind this course which I completed, the BSc(Hons) in Multimedia Studies was Dr Mike Reddy, now a Senior Lecturer at Newport University which is merging with Glamorgan where he designed the course.
Mike Reddy’s degree has spawed many PhDs and other leading professionals. One of the leading advocates of using Activity Theory in Participatory Design, Dr Steve Harris is one such example.
Multimedia Studies is now taught at many universities, and even has its own Wikipedia article.
This lack of appreciation of existing concepts seems evident in Whitney Phillips’s work. I was in fact talking to my sister, a PhD supervisor, about how I think literature surveys should be an important part of the PhD process and regularly updated throughout the programme of study. Had Whitney Phillips done a literature survey she would have come across my work on trolling and new media culture, including this paper, first published in 2008, which in my view her PhD appears to be a replication of. You can see the stark similarities in the table below.
| Whitney Phillips’s 2012 PhD Abstract
||Extracts from my 2008 Research Chapter
Ethnographic in approach, this dissertation examines trolling, an online subculture devoted to meme creation and social disruption. Rather than framing trolling behaviors as fundamentally aberrant, I argue that trolls are agents of cultural digestion; they scour the landscape, repurpose the most exploitable material, then shove the resulting monstrosities into the faces of an unsuspecting populace.
Undertaking the ethnography proved to be time consuming, though revealing about the nature of online communities and the characteristics of theactors that use them. Of the eleven characters iden-tified in the proposed character theory, eight werefound in the investigated online community.
Within the political and social context of the United States, the region to which I have restricted my focus, I argue that trolls digest and often perform a grotesque pantomime of a number of pervasive cultural logics, including masculine domination (Bourdieu 2001) and white privilege (Dyer 1997).
The rise of online communities in Internet environments has set in motion an unprecedented shift in power from vendors of goods and services to the customers who buy them, with those vendors who understand this transfer of power and choose to capi-talize on it by organizing online communities and being richly rewarded with both peerless customer loyalty and impressive economic returns.
Additionally, I argue that the rhetorical and behavioral tactics embraced by trolls, including sensationalism, spectacle, and emotional exploitation, are homologous to tactics routinely deployed by American corporate media outlets. In short, trolling operates within existing systems, not in contrast to, immediately complicating, and often ironizing, knee-jerk condemnations of trolling behaviors.
The ecological cognition framework has the potential to radically transform minor Web sites into highly persuasive and engaging communities where relationships between vendors and customers can be enhanced and the goals of each can be met. While there is also the possibility that a corporation that understands online communities can manipulate its members in such a way that it can easily exploit them, the model could be used by vendors with more of an interest in helping customers meet their goals to market their products and services effectively.
There are around 7 billion people in this world, if one person doesn’t want to be my friend or I theirs there are around 7 billion others to choose from. It doesn’t matter whether people in one’s locality are one’s friend or not, there is a global village of potential friends who can offer more reciprocity than those in one’s immediate surroundings.
There are a few friends I have had – which were what I call good friends – that I regret losing the ‘good’ part of that friendship with. Unfortunately for me, when a good friend is demoted to either being a friend, acquaintance or person from the past, it is hard to regain the trust. These are some of the people I wish that wasn’t true about:
- Dr John Morton – Was my election agent, and one of the few Atheists I could speak with about the origin of the world and humans debate without him being biased. He stopped being friends with me when I gave him a fright when in a delicate emotional state
- John Evans – Was a fellow member of the Cardiff Mixed Speakers Club, who I had a lot in common with intellectually and in terms of journeys he’d been on that I wished to. One day he made me feel that the membership of someone else in the club who wanted his role as well as mine was more important than losing my membership.
- Dr Mike Reddy – Was the only lecturer throughout my studies whose modules I got distinctions in all of. He and I have fallen out of being good friends on a number of occasions because he says something which offends me and I retaliate, ‘like-for-like‘. He’s never learned his lesson, nor I mine.