|
Mika Wendelius wrote: For example if an article contains just copy-pasted text from three sources, I'd think that should be reported as plagiarism even if the sources have been
mentioned.
Copying from a single source is called plagiarism, copying from multiple source is called research. - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
thatraja wrote: copying from multiple source is called research
The amount of research done is surpising nowadays. 
|
|
|
|
|
My point of view:
Copying text without clear indication is always plagiarism. It is not enough to add the source links at the bottom of the article when it is not clear which parts are copied.
Short sequences should be formatted as citation naming the source. Blocks of text may use a header indicating the source.
With large amounts of text from one source there may be also copyright issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Agree. This way the copied portion is always clearly presented.
|
|
|
|
|
 Strongly agree. In CP, we have Quote option like below.
Jochen Arndt wrote: My point of view:......
So they should use this way or go with wiki articles[^] way.
It reminds me of this XKCD[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: With large amounts of text from one source there may be also copyright issues.
There are copyright issues with any copied text unless the owner of the IP has given permission or the terms of publication (e.g. in the website terms of use) permit copying.
Attribution may mitigate any "damage", but technically it does not defend against copyright infringement. Please note that you don't have to explicitly state copyright, production and publishing of intellectual material is protected by default!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
It is so, but only in principle. In practice, citation is well covered by the legal concept of "fair use". It's fuzzy but most usually treated in favor of the person using the quote. (I properly irrelevant here.)
I would say: better develop zero tolerance to real plagiarism. See how many abusers were reported later. Their account have been surviving way to long time. Why?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright is never irrelevant. Fair use can only be decided by a court. It is a defence for copyright infringement and only ever comes into play if a copyright holder decides to sue. Its main purpose it to allow criticism or even parody of an original work and it is tested against a number of principles.
Most people assume that published material is only copyrighted if there is a copyright statement and/or that reproduction with citation does not violate copyright. Neither is true, although citing may serve to bolster a fair use defence.
Plagiarism, on the other hand, is a matter of ethics, not law, and rules on CP do not allow plagiarism.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what "never irrelevant" could possibly mean (applied to any subject), but generally you are right, I agree on all you say about copyright.
As to plagiarism, I don't think the difference is ethics vs law. It could be both, I think. The real thing is: plagiarism is has a narrow well-defined criterion: this is a untruthful statement (direct or indirect) about source of some result of creating work.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely agree. When I used the word "proper attribution", "proper" was important part. It means many things: truthful, clear, noticeable and apparent (nothing like "fine print", and so on.
I want to reiterate: we have so many apparent case of plagiarism reported lately. Let's kick of at least the apparent and shameless plagiarists first. Many account have been surviving way too long.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
The author must specifically indicate which sections of text are copied. For a normal author I would say to only do this a few times and to ensure the bulk of the article is your own words.
Lately to plagiarists I've been saying, "make sure it is 100% your own words," because otherwise they just don't seem to get it.
If you see copied text please feel free to report them or send me an email. I'll sort them out.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Sean!
I think this is a good guideline and leaves out all ambiguity.
Sean Ewington wrote: feel free to report them
Unfortunately have done that a lot lately. Needed to vent over here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
And is bad formated as well 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the one right below but also the same post in the Weird and Wonderful forum:
http://www.codeproject.com/Feature/WeirdAndWonderful.aspx?msg=4911473#xx4911473xx
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally consider such morons more dangerous for community than spammer.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, we do tolerate rude people here far too much.
Alberto Brandolini: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
|
|
|
|
|
We certainly do. Some people seem to think it's okay to be rude.
|
|
|
|
|
And an even greater number (I suspect) aren't terribly adept at realizing that they're acting in a manner considered rude in any given social setting.
I can honestly (and without a microgram of pride, yet kilograms of regret) say that I've been rude on purpose here at CP likely under 5 times. Two that come to mind immediately, there must be others.
I'd be dumbfounded if I'd not been deemed rude by others for comments a far greater number of times than I'd thought my behaviour anything other than fine.
As for the OP in this case - I told him that comments he left from time to time made me think of the word megalomaniac. ( [^]) Far from trying to be rude, it was my intention to be as direct as I perceived he to be. We're not what I'd call buddies, but I find the bashing of SAK by many quite amusing. Some are more articulate than most in their criticism, but generally I find myself thinking "toughen-up princess!"
Lots of people happy to bitch about him 'behind his back' as it were, in the lounge, but very few are prepared to tell him how they think it is. At least I know that between QA, the lounge and Code Horrors I'm guaranteed to get a stress-relieving laugh. 
"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life." - John Lennon
|
|
|
|
|
I've given up telling him how rude he's been. It's like water off a ducks back to him and nothing I say has had any moderating effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough.
I think the 'water off a duck's back' quip is an important part of the equation. Some cultures tend to foster sycophancy, while others seem to encourage true independence and belief in oneself. In my experience, these two particular environments seem to produce individuals that often don't play nicely together.
When talking of immutable facts like the result of 2+2 or the number of countries on a continent, it's relatively easy to correct misconceptions. However, when talking of social situations, almost the entirety of what we know and how we behave is subject to opinion. Sure, group consensus is something we tend to respond to - but it only works when we're of the same opinion as the group or want something that it offers. Changing the opinion of someone that thinks that we are incorrect doesn't really happen. The fact that we're telling them that they're wrong and not them telling us, can even be interpreted as ourselves being the ruder of the two parties.
I dont offer an answer, opinion, or a defence or attack directed at anyone - merely a few random musings that I've had over the years.
Though, all that said - the original post in this thread did bring a smile to my face. Almost as much so as many of the follow-up comments.
|
|
|
|
|
I think there is such a thing as not seeing the apparent difference between criticism (even sarcastic) and offending a person, using plainly bad words addressed to a personality, not a particular idea, view or a work.
This is like bombing in reply to a diplomatic note. How a person supporting the party who is bombing look?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Nicely put SA. You're touching on just the issue that actually makes the attacks on your character amusing to me. Not that I think character attacks are in and of themselves funny, quite the contrary, in fact. I laugh with you, not at you..
The issue I have is the way that generally people criticize you in a manner that just seems plain offensive, rude and attacks the person (you) rather than the behaviour that others have an issue with. This is invariably echoed by other members, in a situation somewhat like college kids grouping together to attack a single individual. Generally, they will be at least one Ad Hominem attack in such a session.
This only serves to tell me more about the understanding that I and others have of ourselves and different personality types and cultures. In practise, it just gives me names to add to my list of people I wouldn't help if I were able. Refusing to work with people whom we dislike is often not a luxury afforded at work. In my spare time however, what I say goes,and I say those that support sending a bomb after an unwelcome diplomatic note aren't getting a thing from me.. (Oh, and to answer your question - they look like the other end of the pipe connected to my mouth)
"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life." - John Lennon
|
|
|
|
|
enhzflep wrote: This only serves to tell me more about the understanding that I and others have of ourselves and different personality types and cultures
And thus we find beauty on the interwebs.
This is, by far, the most important thing for me when loitering online: to learn about others, to realise not everyone things as I do, to understand we come to places along different roads.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
