|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 7, 2010 19:33:21 GMT -4
I do think people have unfairly given him a hard time about his misuse of Apollo acronyms simply because English isn't he native language. We knew what he meant, to complain about it just seems like nitpicking. I have to disagree. Using them wrong the first time is excusable under those circumstances. (You mean "his.") I try to be understanding of errors made by language problems. However, once the mistake has been corrected, it is only reasonable to expect that the person will take the correction on board and stop making the error. Correct language is important in science. "Well, you knew what I meant" only works for so long. I have to agree with Gillian on this one. I was close to making a comment about it myself. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 7, 2010 19:54:38 GMT -4
I always thought plagiarizing was copying an idea and selling it as your own to gain benefit - as Rene did. Any attempt to pass of others' work as your own is plagiarism, no matter your reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 7, 2010 20:32:35 GMT -4
He was in fact squarely contradicted, and in a rather rude manner.Not rudely, merely decisively. I ended up commenting your post, but the rude-remark was in no way aimed at you personally. I don't think you yourself answered him in a rude manner. When I wrote "you" I should rather have written "we". Yes, I have noted that too. Yet I think that it takes hard evidence to call somebody a liar in public. Of course it can be questioned. It certainly does. Again: I am not referring to your personal contribution. In fact I should have started a specific thread for this "meta-debate" instead of using your post as a springboard. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 7, 2010 20:45:34 GMT -4
I'd like to suggest that perhaps the Socratic method doesn't work on someone who doesn't realize their answers are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 21:03:01 GMT -4
Any attempt to pass of others' work as your own is plagiarism, no matter your reasoning. I don't think it is that black and white personally. I'd say copying whole chunks or work from publications without reference, and then submitting it as original academic work is plagiarism, even at high school level. Taking some else's theory and selling it as your own is plagiarism. Then we get into the whole business of IPR and CR. But dragging a few sentences from websites to construct your own website is just cutting down on the hard miles, especially when one is trying to say the same thing. I'm not portraying it as my own, and I don't intend to make financial or academic gain from it. To be quite honest, if someone took a few sentences from publications of mine and put them on a website I would not cry foul, I'd be quite happy that my thoughts/views have been shared. However, if they did the same in a formal paper I'd be quite miffed. It is actually quite tiresome to reference a website too, it becomes a bit wieldy. That's is why I am saving it until the end so I can work out if I should do it by page or just have a complete section of acknowledgment. To be accused of plagiarism while one is still building the website and have not had chance to put in references/glossaries is not really fair game either. That was my point. Maybe I did not explain it so well. I guess what I am trying to say is that a little spirit and common sense needs to be adopted. As I say, I would thrilled to bits if someone was using my ideas on a personal website. I find it hard to stomach that I have been building the website in very slow time, and am accused of plagiarism before I get chance to finish it so that someone can attack me using a straw man. It just makes me despair that something I have a passion for can be rounded upon by a little oik who think 1.5 x 0.5 = 1, but glorifies a man who was a cultural vandal. A man who made money from slandering others achievements, and was not really good at that either. I guess that makes me a bad person then? Life has to be fun too... I guess we will probably agree to disagree. I'm cool with that  |
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 7, 2010 21:06:49 GMT -4
It's not plagiaristic if you're typing out yourself the text you're copying. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 7, 2010 21:46:55 GMT -4
It's not plagiaristic if you're typing out yourself the text you're copying. ;D Thanks Bert...  I agree with Gillranren that we should reference, but for my way of thinking, with a website at least, that is so people can go back to the primary source and read more. Generally, personal websites are built without personal gain in mind. It's more important in this case to ensure that people understand the context that one is referencing. Referencing material goes beyond covering one's backside for plagiarism. If I want to write website that 'Bill Kaysing worked at Rocketdyne and did (a) and did (b) and did (c)', and I find someone has already typed a paragraph to that says that, then a cut and paste into a website it is not really 1st degree plagiarism. It is more like common knowledge and I'm saving myself time. I think providing I get around to acknowledging the source at some time, then that is OK. To take the whole of Clavius, put it on my CV as my website and and claim I am an aerospace engineer is probably a step too far. As I say, in time, I will make a page that reflects where I have taken the material from. I just have not got around to that yet. So Jarrah has jumped the gun once more, and built up his argument before all the facts are there. Anyway, this has nothing to do with this thread, again... sorry... |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 7, 2010 23:03:37 GMT -4
It's plagiarism; you've just found a personal justification for it. Mr. Paraphrase is your friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 8, 2010 2:59:53 GMT -4
It's plagiarism; you've just found a personal justification for it. Mr. Paraphrase is your friend. Oh well, I guess I'll burn in hell for the few sentences I copied. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Nov 8, 2010 5:45:16 GMT -4
Apart from the day job, nothing I do is for personal gain. My main interest outside work is with my band and in writing Christian worship songs, which I make available free, gratis and for nothing on my personal website. The whole point of these songs is for churches and worship leaders to pick them up and use them in their own churches, and if they want to change the key or shuffle a couple of the lyrics around to suit their individual churches better then I have no problem with any of that. I do, however, ask to be acknowledged as the writer of the song, as the terms of the copyright licensing covering such things requires.
However ... if a worship leader picks up one of the songs that I have made available and tries to pass it off as his own composition I would consider that plagiarism even if that leader were not seeking to make any financial profit from it.
There is a strong chance that I would be more pleased that they had chosen to pick the song up and use it, and flattered that they judged it worthy of wanting to claim authorship, than bothered about the plagiarism aspect, but my attitude towards it does not change the fact that that is what it is.
Holding the web to a different standard than other forms of publication is precisely one of the problems that I have with the internet. If it is plagiarism when written down or typed without acknowledging the source, then it is plagiarism when posted to a website without acknowledging the source.
Or am I just too naive to be let loose on a broadband connection?
|
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Nov 8, 2010 9:42:54 GMT -4
Oh well, I guess I'll burn in hell for the few sentences I copied. I'll be sure to throw you one helluva good party when you get there. Do the same for me if you get there first.  |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 8, 2010 10:08:58 GMT -4
We'll see all of you in the Disco Inferno. As if living through the seventies music wasn't bad enough, now we face an eternity of disco. Burn baby burn! |
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 8, 2010 13:17:54 GMT -4
I'd like to suggest that perhaps the Socratic method doesn't work on someone who doesn't realize their answers are wrong. I prefer to stay optimistic, though some might argue that that would be in contradiction with realism :-) I think it's better though than to be pessimistic and thus believe in the opposite of what you hope. "The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions." From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_methodI'll bet inquisitivemind does not know anything beyond common knowledge about tidal forces. He didn't even look it up when I specifically asked him if he knew what tidal locking is. If one could get into a conversation with him about that so to speak "uncontaminated" phenomenon and make him understand and accept it's validity without discussing his general beliefs, he would then have to accept, that there is a contradiction between what is a law of nature and what he believes. That was my idea, but never mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 8, 2010 13:35:29 GMT -4
We'll see all of you in the Disco Inferno. As if living through the seventies music wasn't bad enough, now we face an eternity of disco. Burn baby burn! "And y'know what Hell is, folks? It's Andy Gibb... singing Shadow Dancing... for eons and eons!" -Denis Leary |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 8, 2010 14:21:48 GMT -4
I'll bet inquisitivemind does not know anything beyond common knowledge about tidal forces. He didn't even look it up when I specifically asked him if he knew what tidal locking is. If one could get into a conversation with him about that so to speak "uncontaminated" phenomenon and make him understand and accept it's validity without discussing his general beliefs, he would then have to accept, that there is a contradiction between what is a law of nature and what he believes. That was my idea, but never mind. The issue is that he quite obviously thinks he knows more than he does. When he doesn't know what you're talking about, he blusters through it or else ignores it. It's been explained several places where the laws of nature differ from what he believes, but he concludes that the people explaining that are the ones who don't understand the laws of nature. That's the thing. He'd have to trust anyone here a lick in order for education to progress. |
|
