Craig Wright Allegedly Plagiarized His Thesis, Yet He Got A Ph.D
New data suggests Craig Wright had almost entirely plagiarized his Thesis with Charles Sturt University, which awarded the wannabe Satoshi Nakamoto with a Ph.D. back in 2017.
According to a pseudonymous researcher known by the handle “Paintedfrog” Craig Wright illegally “borrowed” more than half of his contributions from a book initially published in 2004, entitled “Data Mining Desktop Survival Guide” and written by Graham Williams.
The research, which compares both documents, finds some interesting similarities if not direct plagiarism on Craig Wrights’ behalf. More specifically, “Paintedfrog,” says that “Wright plagiarized huge swaths of content and reworded it to avoid automated detection tools. In most cases, he simply substituted synonyms every few words”.
To be completely honest, and although there is a decent instance of concern, I wasn’t surprised at all, especially when analogizing Craig Wright is a commoner in international courts facing a variety of crypto-related lawsuits.
From the Kleiman estate incident to Wright claiming he is the one and original Satoshi Nakamoto, there is controversy all over his name, and therefore a plagiarized Ph.D. isn’t too surprising.
In his post, “Paintedfrog” presents specific instances of the writings found in both cases, in order to demonstrate the level of plagiarism appearing in Wright’s citation.
From “Data Mining Desktop Survival Guide” (2004, page 11)
“In building each decision tree model based on a different random subset of the training dataset a random subset of the available variables is used to chose how best to partition the dataset at each node.”
From Wright’s Thesis (2017, page 32)
“In the construction of each decision tree-model, an individual random subset o the training dataset uses a random subset of the presented variables to decide where to partition the dataset of each node”.
Furthermore, the research reveals that in some scenarios the Ph.D. fellow copies entire sentences that bare syntactical errors which obviously Wright didn’t even bother to “fix”.
Additionally, multiple charts and/or datasets presented in the Thesis, are extracted by sources not mentioned in the original citation, making it look even more aggressively bad-drafted.
Once again, Wright’s arrogance is presented in all its glory and I am more than confident we will have some fancy excuses coming from his corner soon.
An email between the researcher and CSU staff, Emin Gun Sirer, among other professors of the Charles Sturt University, where Craig Wright supposedly attended, said they will further investigate the case, underscoring that plagiarism is not something the academic institution takes lightly.