Plagiarism • Hacker News Board

Re: Plagiarism

#41

Post by jack-r-abbit » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:57 PM UTC

Before I get angry about this I feel I need more info. Neither of the screenshots go down far enough to get to the bottom. The currently available article has Joshua quoted under the image of the tip screen and also has Joshua listed as a source at the bottom. Since this "plagiarized by TNW" article only mentions them adding the "here's what Joshua found" line in the middle & Zee seems to think they were pretty clear of sources, I am curious if those other 2 attributions were there the whole time or also added after the tweet. Also, the TNW article doesn't cite the source of that screen shot of the tip screen.. but then neither does Joshua's article. Where'd that come from? Is it stock imagery for anyone to use? or did Joshua take the photo himself?

Edit: oops. it appears Joshua's original article does credit the image (via subtle link "title") and links it back to the source article. However, that is a pretty subtle way to cite a source, IMO. The TNW article gives no credit for the image at all.

Re: Plagiarism

#42

Post by droithomme » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:58 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…

Well Zee, I'm glad it is creeping up on HN so I and others will know to stay away from you and anything you and your people are involved in in the future since it is clear you are dishonest, a thief, a liar and someone who threatens the people you steal from - assuming that his citation of your tweet mentions were not fabricated, which I assume they were not since you didn't claim that in your response here.

We need more naming and shaming.

Mr. Gross did original research and wrote an article of interest to people. Your person stole his research and content, initially without attribution according to him, and including "nearly word-for-word" citations. This is plagiarism and theft. When you were very politely called out about this by Mr. Gross, you did not apologize, instead you stated you would punish him by "staying well clear of anything ur involved with in future", and then lied by saying that his findings were not all original research, lied that your site was not copying his content, and in general justified your organization's wrong actions.

Now if you had apologized and handled it reasonably that would be one thing. But your insulting and unreasonable response to him shows what sort of person you and the people who work for you are. Liars and thieves. A proven fact as demonstrated by your outrageous, offensive and insulting comments towards Mr. Gross.

Re: Plagiarism

#43

Post by atakan_gurkan » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:59 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…

Plagiarism is not about copyright, it is about citing properly. A direct quote has to be indicated as such, a paraphrasing has to include a reference.

I learned this in my freshman year in college, this is so basic that an "editor" cannot claim ignorance of these rules.

Re: Plagiarism

#44

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:59 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…

[deleted]

Re: Plagiarism

#45

Post by msg » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:59 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…

Did you have a license to create a derivative work from this guy's words? The minimal rewriting didn't elide the substantial structure and organization of the original work. Just linking to the guy did not attribute the paragraph.

For me, it's caught red-handed and trying to stay out of legal hot water. If I thought highly of you, I'd wish you best of luck.

Re: Plagiarism

#46

Post by shock-value » Mon, May 14, 2012, 7:59 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 basically did copy and paste. Probably more accurately, you copy-pasted, then went back in and reworded certain parts. So basically high school level plagiarism.

As others have said, you should have either copied the paragraphs exactly and put them in quotes (with attribution), or you should have written up an entirely original rundown using only the facts to guide you.

What's amazing is that you don't understand why people would find this to be shady, unethical behavior.

Re: Plagiarism

#47

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 14, 2012, 8:00 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…

[deleted]

Re: Plagiarism

#48

Post by tallanvor » Mon, May 14, 2012, 8:00 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…

How can you not understand what you should have done differently here? You may have linked to the author's post, but by not quoting him, you were passing his work off as your own to anyone who didn't click through to the link.

One of your employees fucked up in the first place, and then you made it worse by not admitting what happened was wrong and apologizing. Had you done so, that would have been the end of it. But now here you are.

Re: Plagiarism

#49

Post by shock-value » Mon, May 14, 2012, 8:01 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #28

Braasch wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You do not understand plagiarism.

Re: Plagiarism

#50

Post by j_baker » Mon, May 14, 2012, 8:01 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #11

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…

I'd honestly much rather be brutally honest than go down the artificial PR route.

I'd honestly rather you not be a dick than use the "brutal honesty" cop-out[1]. I mean, yeah, sometimes the truth hurts. But I'm not convinced this is such a case. And the fact that you see nothing wrong would seem to reinforce that lack of conviction.

[1] Not that brutal honesty is always a cop-out, mind you.