Slashdot Mirror
Plagiarism-Detection Software Confirms Shakespeare Play
mi tips us that software intended to help essay graders detect plagiarism has been used to attribute to Shakespeare — with high probability — a hitherto unattributed play, 'The Reign of Edward III.' It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd. "With a program called Pl@giarism, Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III' that matched phrases in Shakespeare's other works. Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings."
It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd.
Or Thomas Kyd plagiarized Shakespeare's work.
Game Show Host (John Cleese): Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim. First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?
Voles (Michael Palin): That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.
Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?
Voles: 43.
Host: Well, how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born?
Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground.
Host: Ah!
Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you're more than a match for me!
Host: Mr Voles, thank you very much for coming along.
Voles: My pleasure.
Host: Next we have Mr Bill Wymiss who claims to have built the Taj Mahal.
Wymiss (Eric Idle): No.
Host: I'm sorry?
Wymiss: No. No.
Host: I thought you cla...
Wymiss: Well I did but I can see I won't last a minute with you.
Host: Next...
Wymiss: I was right!
In Soviet Russia, Shakespeare misspells THEE!
10 little-endian boys went out to dine, a big-endian carp ate one, and then there were -246.
Another use would be to apply the algorithms to religious books to reveal which parts were really inspired by a divinity, and which parts were simply invented by some random, power hungry, con man, to control his peers.
They could call it Bl@sphemy.
For example, these matching strings could just as well be common turns of phrase of the day. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the software was re-configured for common expressions of old English.
This is gibberish. The software isn't configured for common expressions of modern English, either. If you understand what it's doing, you should understand why no such configuration is necessary, as long as the two works being compared are contemporaneous. (Or heck, even if they aren't -- correlation should go down in that case, a high score is even more indicative when comparing non-contemporaneous authors.)
The study would be more plausible if works by two different authors IN ENGLAND IN THE YEAR 1600 contained 20 or so matching strings. But since that control group is missing -- so is the validity of the conclusion.
This is just misinformed. They've compared works by both the same author and different authors in England around 1600. It turns out it's just as true then as it is today that works by different authors contain significantly smaller sets of common wording. Indeed, this technique is used to identify which 60% of the play was written by Kyd (by comparing with his other work) and which 40% comes from The Bard. Comparing known works of either Kyd or The Bard with other works by the same author produce the same high correspondence, and comparing known works between the two different authors produces the same low correspondence.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Sir, I must point out inconsistencies in your argument. It seems that we have two choices:
But records exist that indicate otherwise in both cases. So, my contention is that the records are clearly falsified and we should err on the side of caution. I myself am owner of a corporation that is willing to step up and maintain the legacy of Shakespeare by collecting the royalties for when he returns(1) to claim them. I myself would take no salary for this, only a small(2) annual dividend(3) in order to ensure that the corporation can continue to protect this valuable intellectual property for the forseeable(4) future.