Plagiarism • Hacker News Board

Re: Plagiarism

#21

Post by jenius » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:51 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #3

The old adage is you can't copyright facts and there was certainly no requirement for TNW to do any "original research" to share these findings. However, when you copy/use facts, you wade into hot water if you also copy the structure and the way those facts were originally expressed. The original TNW article shown here seems to step over that line with a barely masked copy of the original paragraphs. What bothers me…

Yeah for me the CEO's response is the absolute worst part about this... very aggressive and defensive, he could have just said sorry we should have asked. And they definitely should have - I'm sure the author wouldn't have said no.

In fact, he said on twitter: " I don’t have any problem with you sharing my post. By all means! But the last two paragraphs were barely rewritten." (https://twitter.com/#!/endtwist/status/202089166975148033)

Re: Plagiarism

#22

Post by wvenable » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:51 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #9

Update: see this comment on HN. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972875 Zee from TNW here. Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here. I honestly have absolutely no idea what we should have done differently here to illustrate an interesting fact with our readers and reference the original source (we did that twice in the article...even with his full name (a screenshot of which…

Isn't republishing someone's work without permission a blatant copyright violation?

Re: Plagiarism

#23

Post by michael_dorfman » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:51 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #9

Update: see this comment on HN. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972875 Zee from TNW here. Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here. I honestly have absolutely no idea what we should have done differently here to illustrate an interesting fact with our readers and reference the original source (we did that twice in the article...even with his full name (a screenshot of which…

Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here.

I'll give it a shot. What you should have done, in my opinion, is just provide a link alongside a one-line summary, along the lines of "Here's an article we found fascinating."

If the article you are writing is based on a single source, it's not an article-- it's a paraphrase.

We work immensely had to product original content as well as link to original sources when deserved...this case was absolutely no different.

so, which was this? It was more than a link, but it surely doesn't qualify as "original content" by any stretch of the imagination.

Re: Plagiarism

#24

Post by russnewcomer » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:52 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #9

Update: see this comment on HN. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972875 Zee from TNW here. Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here. I honestly have absolutely no idea what we should have done differently here to illustrate an interesting fact with our readers and reference the original source (we did that twice in the article...even with his full name (a screenshot of which…

It looks to me, reading the screenshots of both articles, as though the source piece was used as the basis of the article and reworded. (Note the odd placement of system in the sentence about installing the system.) Copy original article over, paste in, and then do some quick rewording so that it's not a 100% copy-paste job.

What should have been done differently is the original article read, notes taken, and then observations made and the original article linked to. Had someone re-written this from a blank screen, it would not have ended up so structurally similar and looked plagiarized.

Re: Plagiarism

#25

Post by droithomme » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:52 PM UTC

Thanks for letting us know about this. Your article was obviously original research which many "mainstream" media outlets have given up on. The article referenced was clearly copied directly from your original research and article without giving proper attribution or payment. It also misrepresented the source of the material by claiming to be written by a "Harrison Weber". In addition, the exchange shown with Zee where, caught in a lie, he threatens you by saying he will punish you by "staying well clear of anything ur involved with in future", shows that he is a disreputable person. Thank you for warning us about this site. I will stay away from TheNextWeb and anything they or their present staff are involved in in the future.

Re: Plagiarism

#26

Post by envex » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:52 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #9

Update: see this comment on HN. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972875 Zee from TNW here. Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here. I honestly have absolutely no idea what we should have done differently here to illustrate an interesting fact with our readers and reference the original source (we did that twice in the article...even with his full name (a screenshot of which…

You could have just taken the entire article, said it was written by the original author and then linked back to the site.

Instead of taking the premise of a popular article to raise pageviews on your site. It should have never said "by HARRISON WEBER"

Rewriting an article on a proven subject doesn't count as producing original content.

Re: Plagiarism

#27

Post by DanBC » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:52 PM UTC

_dark_matter_ wrote: post #19

zeedotme wrote: post #9

Update: see this comment on HN. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972875 Zee from TNW here. Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here. I honestly have absolutely no idea what we should have done differently here to illustrate an interesting fact with our readers and reference the original source (we did that twice in the article...even with his full name (a screenshot of which…

I'm not trying to be rude here, but as the CEO of an online magazine, why can't you write with correct grammar? "I honestly absolutely no idea…" "work immensely had to product"

Because you hire editors to do all that stuff?

Re: Plagiarism

#28

Post by zeedotme » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:52 PM UTC

Braasch wrote: post #10

zeedotme wrote: post #9

Update: see this comment on HN. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972875 Zee from TNW here. Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here. I honestly have absolutely no idea what we should have done differently here to illustrate an interesting fact with our readers and reference the original source (we did that twice in the article...even with his full name (a screenshot of which…

The author should have put quotes around the paragraphs that were blatantly copy and only slightly tweaked to show it came directly from the piece and wasn't written by Harrison. Oh, and your Twitter response was laughably immature to me.

that I can appreciate, but to come out and call it "plagiarism" publicly although we couldn't have done more to reference him...is absurd to me.

Feels like this guy is trolling every single one of us here - myself included - to get a reaction.

Re: Plagiarism

#29

Post by scott_s » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:53 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #9

Update: see this comment on HN. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972875 Zee from TNW here. Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here. I honestly have absolutely no idea what we should have done differently here to illustrate an interesting fact with our readers and reference the original source (we did that twice in the article...even with his full name (a screenshot of which…

Simple: don't copy-paste.

I'm looking at this now: http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2012/05/14/how-3-simple-but...

You reproduced everything he said. If I saw your post only, I would assume that what I was reading were Harrison Weber's words paraphrasing Joshua Gross. Instead, it is what Gross said. And not even in quotations.

So what should you do? After the original text by Weber, post a title and a link to Gross' post. That's it.

Re: Plagiarism

#30

Post by Semaphor » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:53 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #9

Update: see this comment on HN. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3972875 Zee from TNW here. Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here. I honestly have absolutely no idea what we should have done differently here to illustrate an interesting fact with our readers and reference the original source (we did that twice in the article...even with his full name (a screenshot of which…

What? Maybe not copy his paragraph word for word. I don't know, seems a common enough practice though.

But even so, in no case whatsoever behave like you did on twitter. That was not only unprofessional but full-on juvenile. Just look at what you wrote on twitter vs. what he wrote.