::::: Welcome to Web Series Today "collaborative environment"
::::: Help get LGPedia back online!!!!! <== ACT TODAY!!!!!
::::: Welcome to new Web Series Today blog "authors". <= PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!!!

Friday, December 4, 2009

Drama explodes around Julia Allison's Newsweek Lonelygirl15 article!

::::: UPDATE :::::
From Julia: "it was actually added by Newsweek."- (see link below for details).

"Julia Allison Can’t Write Even When She’s Plagiarizing"

"A commenter has pointed out that he Lonelygirl “article” sounds remarkably like the Lonelygirl15 Wiki entry."


"PlagiarismGate 2009: Donkey Didn’t Plagiarize, According to Her"

"Julia Allison has responded to, I don’t know, whatever, what are we talking about again?"


"it was actually added by Newsweek."
"Being Julia: New 100K+ Per Year Star Mag Editor is Former Georgetown Sex Column Plagiarist"

".....who disgraced the school’s student newspaper The Hoya because she plagiarized portions of a column from iVillage."

Hoya Sexa

"In all, four of Baugher’s gag lines appear to be slightly altered versions of the iVillage.com material, and nine others looked partially similar."

See original NewWeek Lonelygilr15 article by "BY JULIA ALLISON": http://2010.newsweek.com/top-10/internet-memes/lonelygirl15.html

Julia Allison on Twitter.

Julia Allison on Wikipedia





  1. Drama on my internet? THAT NEVER HAPPENS

  2. I'm actually shocked it didn't happen here. Where is (insert name of someone who complains a lot)?

  3. There are some quite interesting comments on those articles.

  4. i haven't looked up the comparisons yet, but the lg15 article on wikipedia is not a pretty one.

  5. Oh Newsweek responded in the comment. But there is a lot of good debate.

  6. id like to say im shocked something like this would happen.. but to be honest.. im not shocked at all

  7. She sure does seem to have a lot of humans angry at her.

  8. Umm....are you kidding me?

    If you look at the archives, the "Reblogging NonSociety" thing is basically a dedicated Julia Allison bashing blog, and the "BigHeadDC" thing cites no source at all for its random allegations of previous plagiarism.

    "Dubious sources" would be a generous characterization.

    This is a non-story, and you're just helping dedicated haters bash a random girl by rebroadcasting it.

    I had really hoped we were over the Fox News times of LG15 Today.

    Not saying nothing happened, not saying there aren't certain similarities to the Wikipedia page, just saying sources who don't seem to have made it their mission to destroy Julia Allison would be a lot more credible.

  9. Fox News times? What is that supposed to mean? Gee, I like how our self-appointed lecturer on how everyone is supposed to act/think/say makes his point with a baseless accusation that has no sourcing. Whatever would we do without such a bastion of level-headed thinking and dispassionate discussion?

  10. They seem to be legitimate enough to get a response out of Newsweek unless those response are fake.

  11. "In all, four of Baugher’s gag lines appear to be slightly altered versions of the iVillage.com material, and nine others looked partially similar."


  12. Oh noes, the faceless cowards are upset I pointed out how crappy the primary source was! :O

    What ever will I do?!?
    As for the new source...it doesn't add anything new to the case at hand. It's not in dispute there are similarities, but she has stated her side of the story, and as far as I can tell from LG15 Today's item, no one could prove in any way that her version of the story was false, nor has Newsweek contested that she sent in the version she claims to have sent in.

    So we have an explanation which, especially if the haters are correct and she sucks at writing anyway, is very possible, and no evidence against her.
    The fact that she plagiarized before casts doubt on her, certainly, but given that all the links so far only talked about one incident, at a school paper, it does sound like the organized hatership tries to make the biggest deal as possible out of that because there is nothing else.

    So really...the fact that she copied something for a school paper several years ago does not prove she plagiarized Wikipedia, and it does not invalidate her version of events.
    So unless her editor comes forward and says "bullshit, I didn't put that there", this is really nothing but people who hate Julia Allison claiming Julia Allison did something immoral.

    ...which is sort of expected and nothing astounding.

    If it does come out that she, indeed, was the one writing that version, fine, so be it. Deal with her as you should. But assessing the situation based on the coverage of a blog that frequently refers to her as "donkey" and tries to find fault with her even when she posts bikini pictures, is just stupid. Especially when, even on that highly biased blog, there are comments like this one, in which people basically say "well, if I were her editor, I'd have rewritten her version too!"

    And while we're on the topic of ethical journalism and fairness, putting the accusations of a highly biased source, then an image as a three paragraph spacer, and then her version of events, from the same, highly biased source, which, again, insults her right in the headline, is a very questionable way of structuring this story.

    What stopped you from just putting
    "Update: Version Julia supposedly turned in: http://julia.nonsociety.com/post/268014011"?
    Why link to the hate blog's coverage rather than her own site?
    Why force it so far down?
    Why place her response right next to a group of links to unrelated articles about an incident years ago, rather than next to the link from the same blog about the same topic?
    Why not mark it as an update? You've shown no problem placing bold update marks when Greg responds to something, for example.

    All in all, this strikes me as very biased "coverage" of the issue. I had really thought we were over this kind of "reporting", model.

    There's a big difference between reporting "some commenters have pointed out Julia Allison's article has strong similarities to Wikipedia's entry, but she has produced a version that she supposedly turned in, which does not include these passages", and reporting "The stupid attention-whore donkey who was caught plagiarizing countless times before did it again and has the guts to actually try to deny it! Burn her at stake!".

    And if you can't find any other sources on this incident than ones hating her anyway, no coverage from anyone who doesn't have an obvious agenda against her, then that, too, is telling.

  13. The update is not a bad idea. Thanks.

    The reality is that the "article" evolved over time and since we really do not have a position on it we just linked to ALL the available sources we have.

    If anyone has any others we will be happy to link those too.

    Plagiarism is always a tricky subject. We saw that when the VP of USA Joe Biden was accused of having plagiarized a law review article. These things tend to stick if you move in professional circles.

    For some reason Julia has attracted a lot of people who do not respect her. It is not totally clear yet what she did to offend such a large group of passionate humans.

    However the discussions, if you read through, then are quite involved and actually make some good points about Newsweek which probably should have at least attributed Wikipedia in their article.

    The opinions on whether Julia is accountable are mixed but there seems to be a lot of opinions that Newsweek did something wrong here in terms of traditional journalistic standards.


If you want to become an "author" on Web Series Today please read: http://tinyurl.com/becomeaWSTauthor

For more detailed information about Web Series Today please read: Web Series Today:

For other info contact: [email protected]

Join the discussion: http://www.tinyurl.com/webseriescommunity