Oh Darn! I'm A Plagiarist!

Ok, guys. I’ve got a gripe on this one…And I’ve been fined a million points (Not that I really care. I’m not a freakin’ points whore, you know!! )

Now what I wanna know is that suppose I want to summarize an article written by Xyz due to its being pretty long and windy, and post it in an abridged form with an introduction mentioning that the main points have been ‘extracted’ from Xyz, but without the '[ ex ]' quotes, is there anything wrong with that? A link to the source article is also provided at the end of the post for the complete article.

Now is that ‘plagiarism’?? According to some mods, it is!! And I’ve been screwed and made to look like I’m a plagiarist! (That is what I call Embarrassing!) How is that so? Doesn’t seem logical to me. An ‘[ ex ]’ quote would mean that I cannot change anything from the main article by cutting portions in order to make it short. It has to be posted as it is. So that’s a dichotomy if ever there was one! So what are the rules concerning this?

In other words, one can’t summarize anything written by an author, even if it has been mentioned in the post that it has been done so from the main article written by Xyz.

Secondly, in a post further down in that forum, I have listed out some research papers on anti-gravity from LANL (Los Alamos National Lab), taken from their web site which has been mentioned in the opening post in the same forum and indicated so. However, this list has been put in ‘[ ex ]’ quotes later by the mods. I can’t understand why? These are papers posted on the net and available in scientific circles as various subjects written by different authors. It’s only a list of subjects taken from the web site. So what is the necessity of the ‘[ ex ]’ quotes?

It would be great if someone can clarify these issues. Thanx

Cheers!

P.S. I'm referring to this thread of mine....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hey Mike!

I think the preferred method of using snippets of someone else's material still requires the use of the [ex] tags.

If you want to cut it into bite sized pieces, I believe each portion of the text you copied and pasted need the [ex] tags.

The source link only needs to be placed once, as long as the quoted portions are within the same post.

At least that is how I understand it.



[edit on 7/14/07 by Mechanic 32]

It's about manners and respect.

It's good manners to respect the content of someone else (or another site) by refraining from copying entire chunks of content and instead post a relevant snippet and link.

If we don't demonstrate we respect the content of other people online, through our inherent collaborative manners, how can we ever expect that others would respect our content?

It's a simple idea. It's easy to do. And it speaks volumes for the kind of community we seek to be.

Originally posted by mikesingh
I want to summarize an article written by Xyz due to its being pretty long and windy, and post it in an abridged form with an introduction mentioning that the main points have been ‘extracted’ from Xyz, but without the '[ ex ]' quotes, is there anything wrong with that? A link to the source article is also provided at the end of the post for the complete article.

As an education student, we have strict rules and regulations as to how we ensure we are not pinned for plagiarism. In your case, you must not have made it clear that it was not your work. APA styles referencing is a well used style for education documents and will give you a rough idea on what you could do next time.

Here is a very small extract of a paper i recently did:

...which in turn helps stimulate the intellectual and physical attributes of the child (Sankar-DeLeeuw, 2007). Lastly and most importantly, Smutny (2004) reminds parents to have patience with their gifted child, and get involved in their learning.

Those two examples show me using MY words, but it's all about their ideas and giving them due credit. Their ideas are what needs to be protected and acknowledged, not necessarily the exact words.

The other way to give credit is this example:

Pfeiffer, Petscher & Jarosewich, (2007) go as far as commenting that the I.Q. Tests acceptance are in need of change, claiming the tests contain“technical shortcomings that limited their diagnostic usefulness.”

That is my comments, however, i have also added and shown their words. As said previously, it is all about protecting their work. You may not have intentionally plagiarised, however, it was not clear that your words were actually someone else's ideas.

Sankar-DeLeeuw, N. (2007). Case studies of gifted kindergarten children: Profiles of promise. (2004). Roeper Review 26 (4), 192–207. Retrieved 1 May 2007 from Academic Research Library database.

Smutny, J.F. (2004). Differentiated Instruction for Young Gifted Children: How Parents Can Help. Parenting for High Potential,6-11. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from ProQuest Education Journals database.

Pfeiffer, S., Petscher, Y. & Jarosewich, T. (2007). The gifted rating scales-preschool/kindergarten form: An analysis of the standardization sample based on age, gender, and race. Roeper Review 29 (3), 206–211. Retrieved 1 May 2007 from Academic Research Library database.

[edit on 14/7/2007 by SilentShadow]

Ok. I get the point. In fact I'm pretty aware of it. Now coming back to my post which is the issue here, this is what the intro was...

From my post

Here’s an article written by Richard Boylan, Ph.D, I was reading the other day which was pretty interesting. Now I’m not sure what to make of it. How credible is he? Some of what he’s written has been corroborated by others. But probably mixing fact with fiction raises the credibility factor some.

For those who don’t have the patience to go through the entire article, here are the main points…What do you think?

(Here I had extracted the crunch points from Dr Boylan's article and provided the link to his article below this).

Now what was wrong in this? He has been mentioned as the author of the article and therefore duly acknowledged. I have also mentioned that for those who don't want to go through the entire article, I am putting down the main points. And so gone ahead to summarize it.

Nowhere has it been mentioned or intentioned that the article has been written by me, (which then would amount to plagiarism).

Cheers!


[edit on 14-7-2007 by mikesingh]

I'm a strong supporter of proper quoting and citing one's sources, and my opinion (FWIW) is that if you are TRYING to attribute and you just make a mistake in the method of attribution, you should just be warned.

Deducting a million points should be reserved for those that blatantly disregard and post entire posts with content that is clearly not their own.

In fact, if this is no exaggeration, it seems unfair, because many posters who get fined don't even have 200 points to subtract, let alone a million.

Sorry to hear this happened to you, mate.

Mike, I am with you on this. You acted in a proper and respectable manner. I actually think that it is nit picking to look for this type of violation.

If I write an article, and in that article I tell where and from whom I got the information, then there is no way anyone that is able to read and comprehend should have a problem.

Now I understand the idea of protecting our own work from being ripped of by other sites. But as long as those other sites tell where, and from whom the information they are using originates, then they will be no way anyone can force them to remove items.

Where is the idea of being reasonable in all of this? Are we down to mindless formalism?

NGC, I agree. What should be the main test is if the original author came on the board and read the post.

If he read a post that said, 'here's what some guy who wrote a UFO book said: blah, blah', then the most he would do is identify himself, possibly with some pride that his work was posted.

As long as the material is in quotes, and states clearly that it is not the poster's own work, even if he forgot the source of the original material, or didn't do exactly the right format, then I don't see why there's a problem.

But to take points away because someone forgot to use the 'ex' tags seems overly punitive.

In fact, I think it has a chilling effect on other posters causing people to be afraid to post from other sources for fear they didn't do it right.

This isn't a college English class, fercryinoutloud.

If they let 12 year olds on here that post garbage and do nothing about it and penalize those who post real and interesting content because of formatting issues, then that is, IMO, wrong.

IMO, plagiarism -here- (on ATS) is about misrepresenting the content as your own, not about applying footnotes and 'ex' tags.

I think too many people want us to think they are brilliant, so they try to find obscure content and then rearrange some words and claim (by omission) that it is their own thinking. This is what I object to.

Sure, give those posters a warning who don't format the quoting or citing correctly, after all it is a site rule. But don't go so far beyond that such that it discourages users from posting things.

I'd like to believe that one day ATS members will not need to copy/paste any external source material, rather they do research the material, and subject well enough to produce an opening post all written by the Author/Member with only a few reference links at the end.

That would be the perfect world.

However as it is now, using copy/paste with some comments is the most common way, so proper credit to the source, providing a source link, minimal copy/paste, and most important, use of external source quote tags, is not only the best way to do this, it is the RIGHT thing to do!

What bothers me, almost as much as plagiarism, is when some members start an opening post with a huge amount of copy/paste, a link and a few words like.. "Check this out", What do you think? etc.

Is it too much work to write your take on the material you are sharing with the community? To offer your twist, or take on the item? To get involved in the followup discussion?

What about those who simply post a link? with the words "Cool video" or "This is a really good article, what do you think?"

Can we do better than that here in the ATS community?

Possibly, but until or if that happens, we must follow the rules, and out of common courtesy, of providing proper source credit, trying to limit copy/paste external source material to a couple paragraphs, and actually writing your summary, commentary, take or twist on the item. and of course always using the proper external source tags.

Remember when you are looking for content to share with this community... It is not what material we post that matters, it is what we do with that material that sets up apart from the rest of the world wide web!

Just food for thought, for anyone who reads it.

[edit on 14-7-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by mikesingh
but without the '[ ex ]' quotes, is there anything wrong with that?

Yes. There is something wrong with that. There are rules for posting others' work here on ATS and these are them.

Originally posted by Springer
Going forward, if you post something that is not 100% your own writing or work you must use the QUOTE BOX TAG, post NO MORE THAN 15% of the original (or three paragraphs, whichever is least), and GIVE A LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL.
...
Springer & SkepticOverlord

This was later updated to using the external source tags instead of quote tags.

It doesn't really matter what members think is proper and respectable, guys. The owners don't want big long copy and paste jobs and they want it to be CLEAR at a glance whether or not this is your work or someone else's. That's the way they want it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
[It doesn't really matter what members think is proper and respectable, guys. The owners don't want big long copy and paste jobs and they want it to be CLEAR at a glance whether or not this is your work or someone else's. That's the way they want it.

There's a big difference between a private warning, then a public warning, and then a huge points penalty.

I'd much rather see someone quoting as part of an interesting and content-rich post, even if they make a slight mistake, than reading page after page of garbage from people misrepresenting themselves or juveniles who never finished jr. high using 'text speak'.

Again, sure, give a warning and some help.

Just be sure you're not squelching honest users with interesting comments, that's all.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by mikesingh
but without the '[ ex ]' quotes, is there anything wrong with that?

Yes. There is something wrong with that. There are rules for posting others' work here on ATS and these are them.

BH, You've quoted me out of context. What I meant was, is there anything wrong with not using the quotes box IF ONE HAS ALREADY MENTIONED THE AUTHORS NAME AND SAYING THAT HIS CONTENT is being summarised in subsequent paragraphs for ease of understanding? This way, the author has been given due acknowledgement at the outset. And everyone reading it knows that it is a summary of that author's work.

So what's wrong with that? The bottom line is acknowledgement of the work of the author, isn't it? Or are we now trying to split hair?

Originally posted by mikesingh
So what's wrong with that? The bottom line is acknowledgement of the work of the author, isn't it?

What's wrong with that is that it's against the policy of ATS. Period. The bottom line for you may be different than the bottom line for ATS.

I didn't quote you out of context. The fact is, the rules of the game, should you wish to participate, are clear. If you are quoting someone else, regardless whether you give credit or not, use the ex tags. You directly quoted an article (it wasn't a summary in your own words) and you failed to follow the rules (that you clearly know about, having followed them in other posts of yours).

And a million points? Really? That's not an exaggeration?

Why wouldn't you use the ex tags, anyway? You clearly know who to use them...

Uh oh, I have to apologize to the mods & admins because I wasn't aware of this distinction. I've used quotes and then linked to the article normally before.

I get it now. I won't be doing it that way again. My bad.

Originally posted by mikesinghSo what's wrong with that? The bottom line is acknowledgement of the work of the author, isn't it? Or are we now trying to split hair?

You'd better use 'ex' tags, "quotes", italics, colored text, and footnotes in the future partner.

We'll be 'watching you'.

And, you better quit protesting, or else you're really be in trouble! (I hope I'm kidding).



[edit on 14-7-2007 by Badge01]

Look, If you came to my house for dinner and lit up a cigarette, I'd tell you to take it outside. If you sat there asking, "What's wrong with me smoking in your house. Open a window." I'd tell you that we don't want people smoking in our house. If you insisted on smoking after learning the rules of our household because YOU think the rules should be different, I might very well throw you out on your arse and never invite you back.

It's my house, I make the rules. If you disagree with the rules, it's not OK to break them just because you think the rules are silly or "splitting hairs".

This is ATS's house! I don't like some of the rules, but it's not my house.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Look,

If you came to my house for dinner and lit up a cigarette, I'd tell you to take it outside.

By all means we need to follow ATS guidelines to continue to make this a great board.

In general, this is a good trend, cracking down on correctly posting quotes and external sources can only help the board be the best.

What would you like to see them tackle next?

I'd like to see them adopt my suggestions on improving spelling (by using positive reinforcement).

Originally posted by Badge01
What would you like to see them tackle next?

Off-topic posts, maybe? Just kidding.

If I have a suggestion, I'll send it in with a suggestion form.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It's about manners and respect.

It's good manners to respect the content of someone else (or another site) by refraining from copying entire chunks of content and instead post a relevant snippet and link.

If we don't demonstrate we respect the content of other people online, through our inherent collaborative manners, how can we ever expect that others would respect our content?

It's a simple idea. It's easy to do. And it speaks volumes for the kind of community we seek to be.

Mike et al.

I think you are missing the point here and perhaps you should re read Skeptic Overlords post again.

Respect for content and intelectual property is a big issue. I have the honor of being able to be a guest elcturer at a MAJOR University based medical center. When I use images and reaserch from others, I do so in a correct prescribed manner. If I fail to do so, thats pretty much it for my teaching gig. Not to mention it speaks volumes about my intellectual morailty and integrity. As we have seen with scientist and journalist, plagerism is a carrer killer.

The owners of the site have set up a process that allows you to use and quote outside sources of information while preserving the integrity and respecting the content of sources of information.

As Skeptic said:

It's a simple idea. It's easy to do. And it speaks volumes for the kind of community we seek to be.

There are correct ways to excerpt other people's work. Editing what the other guy did is not excerpting, no matter how much credit you give them for what they did. It's edited presentation, and that is plagarism. You may think you're doing the source a favor by cutting them down because they are windy, but you're not. You can, however, paraphrase. That is not plagarism because you're admitting your editorial position and you're quoting generally...hopefull in proper context.