Here at the hot pink palace of Bitchery, fuckwittery does not ever go unrewarded. With the jaw-dropping hubris of Cook’s Source editor Judith Griggs’ assertions that Godecookery author Monica should feel pleased that Cook’s Source plagiarized her and should think about compensating them for editing her original article, it’s time for some hot steaming Google bombing.
I propose the following redefinition of Judith Griggs’ name:
Judith Griggs
griggs
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): griggs’d
Pronunciation: gr i gz1. To use content on the web without permission, then request payment from original author for rewrites and editing.
2. To remain ignorant of plagiarism, ethics, copyright, and asshat behavior.Etymology: From Cook’s Source editor Judith Griggs’ use of Monica’s article from GodeCookery without attribution or permission, and from Griggs’ subsequent rejection and ridicule of Monica’s request for compensation.
Example of usage: “Why’d you get an F on that essay?”
“I griggs’d the professor’s doctoral thesis from her website, and I even cleaned it up for her and told her she should give me an A, but she failed me anyway.”Alternate usage: “For tomorrow’s deadline, I’m going to griggs some article from LiveJournal but edit it to remove the humor and interestingness.”
Now, to Google Bomb, you follow these very simple steps to help popularize the new definition.
First, I created this page for the definition “griggs”. LINK TO THIS URL:
http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/judithgriggs with “Judith Griggs” as the anchor text. The link should look like this:
This is friendly and effective Google-bombing. The more people that create a link to that page, the higher up in the search results the new definition will appear. See: Bill Napoli.
Any questions, please send them over or list them in the comments.
And if you decide to use and republish this article for profit, please know that I will come down on your ass like a cloud of raging grackle birds. The internet may be for porn and pictures of cats, but it is not public domain. Plagiarism sucks.
ETA: As of 8:10 am EDT on 5 November: our definition is #1. Nice job! You all rock. 
In other news, I’m related to a very nice lady, also named (unfortunately) Judith Griggs. Poor woman. I’m sure she’s glad to be married to a man with an entirely different last name. I’m sure she’s also glad to be from Texas, not New England, and even MOAR glad not to be that heinously stupid…
Re: everyone talking about the Twitter accounts under JudithGriggs’ name and the magazine’s name, those are trolls. Major red flag when the account isn’t created until after she becomes infamous, and tweets acknowledging that she is a thief are another.
Tweeted and Facebooked.
So I assume the excerpts, deleted scenes and free reads I post on my website belong to Judith Griggs now? Is that the logic?
Jeez.
I bow before your Google-fu. I haven’t had this much fun since Bill Napoli!
I’m all for the “shame on you, Judith” brigade. But some of the comments on FB are going too far. It’s one thing to call her on her ignorance of copyright law, and her less than polite email response, but it seems to me – and this is just my own humble opinion – that it is turning into a case of cyberbullying by some. I think once people start to make physical threats, we need to all collectively take a big deep breath and step back a minute. Is this really what the original intention was? I dont think so. Again, this is just my opinion and others can feel free to disagree. 🙂
Yes, it does happen on college campuses, and when my students do it, they’re given a zero for plagiarism and an invitation to visit the University Honor Council where they can be expelled.
I’m curious why she wants to lump herself in with this crowd in her own defense. This would not win many points in Debate 101.
Sad. That’s my last name. Blah.
Apparently, this also made the news on some of my nerdy husband’s fav tech sites, they too take issue with the idea that the interwebs is a sampler platter of freeness.
The husband’s analogy: “It’s as if some dude stole your car and when you press charges he gets all pissy since he got it detailed.”
Speaking of husbands, in true plagiaristic asshattery form, I’m also waiting to see if, when someone finally gets Griggs on the phone to do some ‘splainin, she passes the phone to her husband.
Can we start a “Judith Griggs Cockney Rhyming Slang” contest?
‘Chickens and Pigs’
‘Shovels and Digs’
‘Apples and Figs’
Seems the logical next step to me!
Just hit me now…
Cook’s Source.
A title that’s suspiciously like, but not affiliated with, Cook’s Illustrated or Cook’s Country.
Could this be the magazine equivalent of The Asylum?
Yeah, if you look at the “Judith Griggs” twitter account it says:
Oh yes, I joined in
<a href="http://gnostalgia.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/judith-griggs-and-the-google-bomb/">Judith Griggs </a>
!!!
And so it will be done. I’ll hit up FB tonight.
http://winters-queen.livejournal.com/208475.html
@KJsgrrl
I agree. While she brought all of this down on herself by responding completely inappropriately, some of the reaction now is just people being mean for it’s own sake.
She should receive cease and desist orders from all wronged parties, which effectively puts her out of business, but the cold cruelty in some of those posts is frightening.
She’s a foolish, self-important woman whose arrogance and condescension caught up with her, but at what point do her detractors become the thing they claim they hate?
Yes, those with a vested interest in the actual issue should call her out professionally in the appropriate venues, but encouraging all these Facebook people who, at this point, are just piling on because it’s the thing to do in the moment, to harass her and her advertisers is just wrong, IMO.
I don’t think this behavior helps new writers get their articles published. At what point does your Facebook following or blogroll become a detriment to your career rather than a plus? What publisher is going to want to have to deal with what happened to this woman yesterday? What happens when this happens to a publisher who is being wrongly accused?
To add on to what Sharon said…not saying some of this (okay a great deal of this!) isn’t deserved but I do think there are more civilized ways to handle this. Legal recourses, etc., I have to say I don’t support Google bombs for this reason. It’s not my job or calling to punish someone on the say so of a blogger who got ticked off, however justified. There is something rather alarmingly easy about this -almost too easy and I think people feel justified in launching vendettas confident in the protection of being a a popular blogger or Internet presence or whatever. It’s just so easy to cause a great deal of permanent harm to someone without really thinking of the consequences. Of course the publisher should have thought of that before she plagiarized and you could say she brought it on herself. But what one of the hardest lessons I’ve learned is the following: Because one has had crap thrown at one, one is NOT justified in throwing crap at someone else. Nor are one’s friends, relations or fellow bloggers justified at flinging said crap. Crap is still crap, regardless of who flings.
Apparently there’s a new Cook’s Source page on Facebook because they believe the old one was hacked. You can see it here:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-Source-Mag/159072764128073?v=wall
I do freelance writing (web content) on a part-time basis and it cracks me up that anyone thinks because it’s on the Internet, it’s public domain – anyone. THIS woman claims three decades of editing experience. And to tell the author that she should pay for the editing was really, really crossing the line. I predict Ms. Griggs will no longer have a career in publishing after this. And while I don’t agree with name-calling or bullying, I absolutely think she has zero excuse for her actions. Her condescending attitude just makes it easy for me not to feel sorry for her in the least.
I guess all the clients that pay me to write content for them are wasting their money. After all, they could just go steal someone else’s work, right?
She plagiarized *Martha Stewart*? And *Paula Deen*? And ***Disney***? Oh man, when their lawyers are done with her, she’ll wish she’d never been born.
Oh Sarah, BTW…since the Internet is public domain, can I steal your blog? You ‘K with that?
I was confused about how to GoogleBomb/ create a link, so I did the next best thing: I created a definition of Griggs (Sara’s def’n) on urbandictionary.com =D
P.S. I don’t have the link for it yet cause you have to submit it to the editors for them to check the submission.
Ah, there. Now the natural order of the universe is restored. All we need is a few ‘experts’ (preferably with degrees from *real* universities, none of those Open University joke qualifications, thank you) to come in and lecture us that this plagiarism isn’t that big a deal, and the circle of life will be complete.
Unbelievable arrogance of the woman. Their Facebook page is testimony to their self-righteousness. Shall we griggs her?
@Ann Somerville:
I’m addressing the nature of the retaliation, not the validity of the offense.
Yes, what she did is wrong, wrong, wrong, and she ought to be held accountable.
BUT…
What happened was a pile-on of personal attacks by people who aren’t even involved.
What happens when something like this happens and it’s all based on false information?
Try to separate the two phenomenon, please.
That I disagree with the method of retaliation does not mean I think what this woman did was remotely excusable at all.
Well yes. This always happens when bad actions are exposed. It’s an inevitable side effect, unfortunately.
What’s also unfortunate is that brazen plagiarists don’t change their behaviour, apologise or remove stolen material without this kind of exposure – or without the attendant pile-on. If plagiarists (a) didn’t plagiarise in the first place and (b) behave with some humility and apology the moment their error is detected, the need to expose and pile-on wouldn’t exist. And it’s not like they can’t imagine the consequences, not unless one have never seen the internet. I can’t believe even Cassie Edwards, since she has enough knowledge to search for material to steal, could have been unaware what would happen if she was caught out.
Basically victims of plagiarism have two weapons – lawyers, which are expensive and not always effective; and publicity, which is cheap and a lot more effective. It’s not pretty, and human nature is what it is, but you have to remember that this is self-inflicted misery. Griggs is stirring the pot egregiously, so complaining about the response to that is a bit naive. And also pointless.
Clearly pointless. I see that now.
You all might like to know that one of the advertisers in the Cook’s Source magazine who pulled their ads, is using the publicity, positive and negative, to ask people to support a local charity, The Food Bank of Western MA :
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/08/turn-lemon-bars-into.html
So if you want to turn your outrage into a force for good, then donate!
Looks like freely using material is rampant. Another blogger had her picture stolen from her website and printed in a journal. http://chickensintheroad.com/living/open-letter-to-dave-belanger/#comment-98710