Wikia Page Set Up To Prove Colonel Qaddafi’s Son Plagiarized PhD Thesis

Posted Mar 6, 2011

The London School of Economics director Sir Howard Davies recently resigned over a scandal that has connections to Libyan dictator Colonel Qaddafi. The London School of Economics accepted $2.5 million in donations from charities run by Qaddafi. Saif al-Islam has a PhD. from the LSE, but it turns out that his thesis was plagiarized. A wiki page was even set up to prove his thesis was plagiarized. Anonymous Internet activists have been Googling away to get results. About 17 pages have been lifted according to the Wiki page. Below is an example of the plagiarized excerpts:

Here is a passage from Saif al-Islam’s thesis:

The IMF cannot be blamed directly for all of the problems with the way PRSPs have been developed in particular countries; however, the fact that creating and implementing a PRSP has become a key mechanism for securing IMF finance means that these failures in the PRSP process take on an importance far beyond the problems with citizen participation in policy-making in those countries that are not subject to conditionality, e.g., the UK. The use of conditionality to enforce PRSPs makes the normal democratic process-whereby policies, once put in a plan by government, are subsequently scrutinised, changed and sometimes reversed-difficult, if not impossible, and is therefore fundamentally anti-democratic.

Here is a passage from the World Development Movement report:

While the IFIs cannot be blamed directly for all of the problems with the way PRSPs have been developed in particular countries, the fact that creating and implementing a PRSP has become a key mechanism for securing IFI finance means that these failures in the PRSP process take on an importance way beyond the problems with citizen participation in policy-making in countries not subject to conditionality (eg, the UK). The use of conditionality to enforce PRSPs makes the normal democratic process ? whereby policies, once put in a plan by government, are subsequently scrutinised, changed and sometimes reversed ? difficult if not impossible and is therefore fundamentally anti-democratic.

[Gawker]