Talk:Jami Floyd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jami Floyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Please[edit]

Hello Ser Amantio di Nicolao & other editors.

First, Since I'm here, let me say that I cannot thank you enough for your work. I love Wikipedia, rely on it every day and make a contribution to the fund every year. It is a treasure.

I am not sure I am going about this in the right way, but I am writing to ask for a slight correction to my page.

The entry [at the bottom of the Journalism section] currently reads "In November 2021, 4 articles authored by Floyd that were published on the WNYC news site Gothamist between March and October 2021 were retracted for plagiarism.[30]"[citing Marc Tracy/NYT]. I am requesting that you change the word plagiarism since Marc Tracy never reported the articles were "retracted for plagiarism." Instead, he very carefully reported, throughout his article, that the articles were removed for lack of proper attribution, based upon his reporting and the language from the Gothamist website, "After publishing this story, WNYC found it contained unattributed words or phrases. We have decided to retract this article and are investigating the editing process that led to this mistake.”

This may seem like hair-splitting, but it is not. Mr. Tracy very deliberately does not use the word "plagiarism," because he did not want to libel me with reporting that was inaccurate and I would respectfully and kindly ask Wikipedia to change its language to reflect what was reported in the NYT, i.e., what actually is actually reflected on our website at WNYC/Gothamist: "...articles authored by Floyd that were published on the WNYC news site Gothamist between March and October 2021 were retracted for lack of proper attribution to original sources."

The findings at WNYC around the 4 articles are specific and very important. I know Wikipedia editors care very much about getting the facts right. I'm happy to discuss this further, if helpful, since I know it is nuanced. But it is more than semantic. It is about factual accuracy. Thank you for you time and consideration.

Jami Floyd jami@jamifloyd.com (917) 327-8573 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.62.98 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are right in saying that what the article currently says is incorrect then of course it should be changed, as soon as possible. However, can you explain what the difference is between using "unattributed words or phrases" and plagiarism? I'm not at all clear what distinction you are drawing, and I shall be grateful if you can clarify that. JBW (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "published unattributed words and phrases" and "plagiarism" is the same as the distinction between "published facts found to be incorrect" and "lying". One is a simple statement of what has been done and the other is an accusation of wrongdoing. Reading the cited NYT reference, it is clear that neither the Gothamist nor WNYC nor the Times ever went to the latter position. Using that word here therefore violates WP:V and the WP:BLP policy. To the IP requester: I am not an administrator but this is not a matter that requires administrative action. Trusted users such as JBW serve to enforce certain special actions but are not required to make corrections such as requested here. I have accordingly ensured that the text is updated to accurately reflect the reference cited as a normal editorial decision. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW:, @Eggishorn: Please see the recent news. There will likely be more information as the days go on. Thriley (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Thriley @Eggishorn and @JWB.
Again, I will start by thanking you for the work you do for Wikipedia and its millions of users who rely upon you to keep us updated and get the facts right. I am a regular user and donate every single time I get a pop-up.
I know this is tricky since I am the subject of this article and I understand that is not the Wikipedia way. If at ANY point you prefer, I can have someone else reach out to you.) But I am closest to the fact here and the sources for the stories you cite simply are not. So here goes.
I'm writing about this sentence: "In April 2022, Floyd was accused of plagiarism in 45 articles going back to 2010. She resigned from WNYC following the release of the report. She was told by WNYC management that the plagiarism was a fireable offense." [citing the Fine Print, Insider Radio, the NY Post, and the Columbia Journalism Review]
First: "In April 2022, Floyd was accused of plagiarism in 45 articles going back to 2010." This is not factually correct.
I'm not sure which of the four cited articles serves as the source for this first sentence, but the sentence is prima facie inaccurate because (1) WNYC never accused me of plagiarism and -- to this day -- has never shown me "45 articles" referenced first by the NY Post and then by several subsequent news organizations. The reporters who have told and retold this story are relying upon a source inside the WNYC newsroom who has apparently asserted that "Floyd was accused of plagiarism in 45 articles going back to 2010" but that is simply not true because it never happened. I would know because I would have been in the meeting. There was no meeting. There was no allegation. To this day, I've never seen 45 articles.
The next sentence: "She resigned from WNYC following the release of the report." This is also incorrect for two reasons: (1) There was no "Report," and (2) therefore my decision to leave had nothing to do with a report that didn't exist.
Indeed, my decision to quit our very troubled newsroom (see citations below) was long in the works, timed for April 4th, to align with my book deal announced the same day (https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/book-deals/article/88921-book-deals-week-of-april-04-2022.html). All of this negative publicity drowned out my good departure news that was long in the works.
It's worth noting that, of the four sources cited for this part of the entry, only one reporter (Savannah Jacobson of CJR) asked a me about any of this. When I responded that I had no idea what she was talking about she was clearly surprised that I hadn't seen the "45 stories she asked about," or even 40, or 20, etc. I'd seen nothing. And because there was no "report" I hadn't seen that either.
As for my reason for leaving WNYC -- my book deal -- it would have been very easy for The Fine Print, Insider Radio, The NY Post or CJR to have sussed that out, by asking me or even searching social media. Or, they could have done what good journalists do, called the subject of their story: me.
So, to be clear about this sentence, it is incorrect not because Wikipedia is at fault but because it relies on incorrect reporting. I wasn't fired. And I didn't resign "following the release of the report" because there was no report and I left of my own accord to write my book which has a tight 1-year deadline.
Third sentence: "She was told by WNYC management that the plagiarism was a fireable offense." This is clearly being provided by a source who does not know what went on behind the scenes. First of all, I WAS management (Promoted from host to senior editor and recently promoted to Director). Second, the conversations I was having with my colleagues in management were about the announcement of my departure on amicable terms -- how we would tell the organization because I ran an important unit and how to lay the groundwork for its success going forward. No one would need to say "plagiarism is a fireable offense" since everyone knows that.
This gets to your excellent question posed by JWB back in November 2021, "[C]an you explain what the difference is between using 'unattributed words or phrases' and plagiarism?"
The difference, in a word, is intent.
I was not fired from WNYC, even after a coworker alleged plagiarism precisely because there was no intent to steal, cheat or "pass off" the words of others as my own and, therefore, there was no finding of plagiarism (See Bill Marsh, Plagiarism: Alchemy and Remedy in Higher Education, p. 33). Had there been, I *would* have been fired. But I was not. (Indeed note Savannah Jacobson's CJR piece which you cite [note 34]: "[Editor-in-Chief Audrey] Cooper told the newsroom that she did not know Floyd was going to depart." If the boss didn't know, she clearly didn't fire me.
As you also write earlier in my Wikipedia entry, "Ms. Floyd acknowledged “mistakes,” saying they were “never intentional or designed to deceive anyone." That is exactly right. I believe people should take responsibility for the things they do that that are wrong. But I also believe that we should not have to take responsibility for more than that. That is why intent is so key here (as it is in criminal law).
Dr. Bill Marsh writes in the book I cited above, "Plagiarism: Alchemy and Remedy in Higher Education," that "Plagiarism may not be an actual crime, ... but it often gets treated -- talked about punished -- as if it were. (p.33) ... Plagiarism in the modern context implies the intentional stealing of intellectual property..." (p. 34). This is precisely why the CJR and NY Times reporters did not use the word "plagiarism" in their initial reporting of this story. Their editors knew the difference between patch writing (unwittingly pasting unattributed text into one's work) and plagiarism (intentionally stealing from others with the intent of "passing off" the words as one's own). It is nuanced, but it is a very real distinction. To say I "plagiarized" would have been defamatory per se. So the NY Times and CJR deliberately avoided that word reporting only that WNYC found unattributed text in some of my web copy.
But then along came the NY Post, an entirely different animal, which never contacted me for this important context. They reported -- falsely -- in their headline and the body of their story which you cite [note 33], "WNYC’s Jami Floyd accused of plagiarism in 45 articles dating back to 2010." I've explained above why this is defamatory per se, but once The Post used this language, other news organizations (journalistic ethics aside) felt they had license to do the same, relying on The Post for cover (e.g., "...the NY Post reports."
(A relevant aside: my lawyer is in touch with General Counsel David Pitofsky, and Assistant General Counsel Gabrielle Haskell at NewsCorp about the NY Post's article which set off this firestorm. As a public media person, I don't have much. money, but defamation per se in New York is defined as "a statement that exposes another person or business to aversion, contempt, hatred, or induces an unsavory or evil opinion in the minds of a significant number of people in the community and causes special harm." Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 NY 2d 429 (1992). Since this is what the NY Post has done to me, and other outlets are now running with it, I feel I have no choice but to defend myself.)
I don't know who at WNYC person is promulgating this false narrative about me, or why (I have a guess, but unlike others, I am a journalist who does not engage in speculation without all the facts in front of me lest I defame someone).
But I do know from my great reliance on Wikipedia that the editors really do endeavor to get every entry right. (In the past my age has been corrected, my address has been removed to protect my family and various awards entries have been removed and added. Frankly, I don't know why I have such a fat entry when others who are more notable do not. But here we are.)
You are "writing the first draft of history." Truly.
I tried to bring change to a highly dysfunctional newsroom at a time when our country is more divided than united. (See just two examples of many: Ben Smith NY Times, It’s the Media’s ‘Mean-Too’ Moment. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/23/business/media/wnyc-public-radio-bullying.html) and Maxwell Tani, WNYC Staffers Terrified of Editor-in-Chief’s ‘Vendettas’ (https://www.thedailybeast.com/wnyc-staffers-terrified-of-editor-in-chiefs-vendettas)). It was change that people at WNYC simply weren't ready for and it landed me on the wrong side of someone.
But someone alleging 45 instances of plagiarism against me doesn't make it so. The iteration of the facts as presented to you through outside media organizations is patently untrue.
If you feel you must have an update to my employment status (and I understand that you do) I would *humbly* suggest something along these lines.
"On April 4, 2022, Floyd resigned from WNYC to pursue a book deal announced the same day. [1]. Her resignation came just three days after WNYC editors published a note on their website stating that 45 articles, all written by a single author were removed from its sites, WNYC.org and Gothamist. [2] Sources inside the newsroom told reporters that Floyd was the author. [3]. Floyd has announced that she is planning to sue the station for gender discrimination, age discrimination, retaliatory workplace harassment, and defamation. [4] [5].
I know this a long TALK entry, but I hope that demonstrates how much I care. I *greatly* appreciate your time and attention.
Thank you kindly for your attention.
67.247.62.98 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)JamiFloyd67.247.62.98 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@67.247.62.98: I removed the NY Post article. It really shouldn't be a paper used for contentious claims. Thriley (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@67.247.62.98: I think the paragraph you suggest doesn't totally tell the full story. There's a lot of information in the CJR article that hasn't been added yet. I do agree that the word "plagiarism" should be carefully used. Instead of me singly overseeing this, I'm going to list it on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard to give a chance for other voices who are more adept at this kind of thing than I am. Thriley (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is all I can ask for @Thriley. I greatly appreciate your attention. "Plagiarism" is an academic term, not a legal one, so it's tricky. But it's also a career-killer when leveled at one person by another who may not know (or care) what it really means. That is why I appreciate that you removed the NY Post as a source, and will take this to your other Biographies of Living Persons Notice Board for a broader discussion. This has been the most difficult time in my professional life, but I am fully transparent about what happened (at least so far as I can be with the limited information I've been provided). Thank you again 67.247.62.98 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)jamifloyd67.247.62.98 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Editors. I wonder whether you have had a chance to review this paragraph: "In April 2022, Floyd was accused of plagiarism in 45 articles going back to 2010. She resigned from WNYC following the release of the report. She was told by WNYC management that the plagiarism was a fireable offense."
As I mentioned before, (1) I was not accused of "plagiarism" despite what several outlets incorrectly reported (those outlets have committed defamation per se; other outlets such as the NYT were very careful to never use the word "plagiarism" because that was never alleged by WNYC); (2) there was no "report" released in April or ever at WNYC (that is also wrongly reported by the NY Post and then repeated by other outlets citing the Post; (3) I resigned on April 4th, to pursue a book deal that was long in the works and announced that same day (WNYC knew this, yet it appears in very few of the articles and none of the sources Wikipedia cites, and (4) I am suing WNYC for defamation and discrimination (which was also widely reported but not mentioned in this article/entry). I am happy to share links to these sources/articles. Thank you for your consideration. JamiFloyd (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Jami Floyd to Include Lawsuit[edit]

Hello editors,

I hope you will add some new information to the Jami Floyd page. I don't want to edit myself because that violates Wikipedia policy.

Here is the link to the Complaint [Jami Floyd v. New York Public Radio (WNYC) in federal court on 2/8/23. file:///Users/jamifloyd/Downloads/Floyd%20v.%20NYPR%20-%20Complaint%20-%20FILED%202-9-2023.pdf

Here's another way to view the lawsuit: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.593702/gov.uscourts.nysd.593702.1.0.pdf

Judge Andrew Carter was assigned on Friday 2/10. (see attached)

There is also press coverage.

Bloomberg Law. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/ex-all-things-considered-host-jami-floyd-sues-wnyc-for-race-bias

Inside Radio. https://www.insideradio.com/free/new-york-public-radio-sued-by-former-reporter-who-alleges-pattern-of-racial-discrimination/article_c83ed0b0-ab78-11ed-986b-6b1c04cb1f3d.html

Also I would like to state again that I did not resign "from WNYC following the release of the report." There was never any report (at least not one that I ever saw. I never saw 45 articles. And I told the station as early as March 27th that I would be leaving to pursue a book deal. The book deal was announced in trade pubs on April 4, 2022.

Thank you for your consideration. JamiFloyd (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jami_Floyd&oldid=1207254163"