|
Lately I've seen lots of articles either published or in moderation queue, which have been constructed by taking texts from other sources. Often the sources have been mentioned but my question is, how much authors own text should be included in the text and how to measure if the amount is sufficient?
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.
Your comments please.
|
|
|
|
|
No, this is not plagiarism by definition. In such cases, the value of the publication can be questioned. Indeed, if some publication contains mostly the quoted material, it can be considered as not original and, under certain conditions, not appropriate. Article can be removed, and so on, but the author cannot be accused of plagiarism in any way.
"How much author's own text should be included" cannot be a valid measure even for estimation of the value of the publication. If you question an article, you can consider it as, say, a defending a dissertation. The author should convince people in some points, original though, something. In principle, it can be done in a very few words.
Anyway, we face here real shameless, even "naive" plagiarism, which is much more important to block. Plagiarism is a form of cheating, based on the lie on the origin of some code or text, lack of proper attribution; that's as simple as that.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov wrote: Anyway, we face here real shameless, even "naive" plagiarism, which is much more important to block.
And by a Platinum level author who is able to publish his articles without going through the moderation queue. It is a good thing this is a rare occurrence.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
I see your point. I think I used the word plagiarism too loosely. My point is that if the author has posted an article/tip/whatever containing mainly copied text with no actual value adding content, in my opinion this is inapropriate. Actually regardless how many sources there is (1,2,3,...)
The line between legimite and abusive post is sometimes very thin and I'm trying to clarify it to myself 
|
|
|
|
|
At this point, we set aside more formal notion of plagiarism and are discussing the fuzzy notion of article quality and suitability for publication. Here I agree with your. Don't get me wrong: I would agree if you say that the article can be abusive even without plagiarism, even the legitimately quoted and attributed material can make abusive content. This is what you ware talking about in first place. But that's why we have the filtering by moderation and peer review system. If you wanted to say that the filter mesh should be thinner, I would also agree.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
