Plagiarism • Hacker News Board

Re: Plagiarism

#161

Post by javajosh » Mon, May 14, 2012, 9:28 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 upvoted you (really) because I totally agree with you: CEOs like you should be completely, brutally honest. Especially when this reveals you to be oafish and unprincipled.

This policy is good for customers (so they can avoid your products) good for investors (so they can avoid investing in your company) and good for prospective employees (so they can not).

Re: Plagiarism

#162

Post by droithomme » Mon, May 14, 2012, 9:28 PM UTC

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #140

droithomme wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you bring up a reasonable point: that the forced tipping system with no values below 20% was previously discussed in other articles such as that of Grynbaum from January 8, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/nyregion/new-nyc-livery-ca... In fact it's not a secret at all since New Yorkers and those visiting the city are quite acquainted with the system, it's no secret, so I am not sure Mr. Grynbaum is a r…

> Worth mentioning is the article on the usability blog from which Mr. Gross hotlinked his image of the interface Although Mr Gross did not hotlink the image. Notice the images locations and file types are different.

Thanks for the correction there, you're right, he actually provided a link back to GoodExperience and even set the images Title tag to state that the photo was from GoodExperience.

Re: Plagiarism

#163

Post by mpclark » Mon, May 14, 2012, 9:28 PM UTC

michael_dorfman wrote: post #23

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 l…

But a one line summary is too short to get picked up by Google News -- that's why all the tech blogs try to write at least 70 words on absolutely anything, no matter how thin it is...

Re: Plagiarism

#164

Post by jacquesm » Mon, May 14, 2012, 9:28 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #154

jacquesm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really don't get it do you? > If it ever does happen, I assure you that all it takes is one email to office@thenextweb.com and we'll have it resolved. I'm sure it does. But the point is that you should ensure through process and not through policy that you do not end up with other people's stuff on your site without attribution or compensation. The fact that you'll take it down to avoid further damage is not enou…

We do have processes AND policy in place to make sure this doesn't happen. But it can still happen unintentionally and when it does, we react activity and proactively.

> we react activity and proactively.

That does not parse but I think you're confusing aggressively with actively and proactively with defensively.

All at once. And you look pretty silly in the process.

Just apologize to the guy, make sure you'll never do it again.

As long as you keep spinning this will make you look worse and worse.

It's obvious that you don't have a process in place because then this would not happen.

This was not unintentional, there is 0 chance of that.

Nobody copies a chunk of text like that unintentional, nobody behaves like you did in this thread and elsewhere unintentional.

The cover-up is worse than the crime, if you had been a responsible adult about this in the first place it would have gone away long ago.

It was dumb. Only you can stop it.

Re: Plagiarism

#165

Post by koide » Mon, May 14, 2012, 9:29 PM UTC

peetahb wrote: post #85

ianterrell wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a theory on this point, after witnessing this effect in a few other places (emails from prominent writers, CEOs, etc). Writers write so much that their fear of shipping their writing is diminished through practice, so they write, ship, write, ship, write, ship. They're in creative mode, just putting words on the paper. They're busy, so they go quickly, so that they can get more done. They know that when it mat…

I might have to steal/quote that last line. "Move fast and break things. Edit later." Perfect.

Release early and often.

The prolbem ocrcus wehn exprsesd tghins are had to undrestnad, or the idaes pooryl tghought out.

Re: Plagiarism

#166

Post by pygorex » Mon, May 14, 2012, 9:30 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…

There's a fine line here I think TNW is missing.

Blogs quote other blogs all the time. But they make it look like a quote. Usually indented, offset, quoted, in italics, etc - with a prominent link to the source article. It's a small formatting detail but it has huge implications - it sends a clear signal that is immune to any plagiarism claims - "this is not our content but, dear reader, we still think it's worth your attention".

Also the twitter response is pitiful. Even if you're convinced that you've done nothing wrong that does nothing to change the fact that the original author feels slighted. Telling him that he's shouldn't feel aggrieved does nothing to fix the situation.

A simple apology along with an edit to the TNW article to clear up any attribution issues would have solved a small problem and prevented it from exploding into a mini-scandal.

Re: Plagiarism

#167

Post by billpatrianakos » Mon, May 14, 2012, 9:31 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #13

Yes, you were plagiarized. TheNextWeb was in the wrong, and they made it worse by their reaction. But I also feel that the main insights of your posts were not your own. They were that of the NY Times reporter Michael M. Grynbaum. That is, I feel the main insight of your post were two things: the doubling of tips, and the attribution of this to the buttons on the credit-card machine. Your contribution was to look up…

Regardless TNW took his article almost entirely word for word! Only two or three words were added/removed in TNW's version. This isn't about facts, it's about copy-pasting someone else's words and then sending 6 incredibly defensive and dickish tweets after othe original author complained (barely).

At the end, Zee says he'll steer clear of the original author's work for fear of ridiculous accusations as if to say "you should be happy that we plagiarized you, now we'll punish you by never flattering you with another plagiarized article again".

He couldn't have made it any clearer that he was the author of the original after a complaint.

You can't even play devils advocate on this one. TNW is so deep into "wrong" territory that nothing short of removing the entire post and replacing it was an admission of plagiarism will redeem them in my eyes.

Re: Plagiarism

#168

Post by scott_s » Mon, May 14, 2012, 9:31 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #70

scott_s wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please pay attention to what else we're saying - that the second piece isn't acceptable, either.

yes I appreciate many of you agree a quote should have been included rather than an attempted rewrite. I agree, that would have been better. However, calling us out for plagiarism does feel far too extreme when the updated piece clearly states the source of the facts. The original piece only included links without a name and that I agree is 100% wrong. I hadn't seen that original piece before we were called out on tw…

Citing sources does not protect you from plagiarism. That is what I mean by the second version is not okay. If the lesson you're learning here is "I just need to make sure we link to the original" then you're learning the wrong lesson.

Re: Plagiarism

#169

Post by famousactress » Mon, May 14, 2012, 9:31 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #154

jacquesm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really don't get it do you? > If it ever does happen, I assure you that all it takes is one email to office@thenextweb.com and we'll have it resolved. I'm sure it does. But the point is that you should ensure through process and not through policy that you do not end up with other people's stuff on your site without attribution or compensation. The fact that you'll take it down to avoid further damage is not enou…

We do have processes AND policy in place to make sure this doesn't happen. But it can still happen unintentionally and when it does, we react activity and proactively.

Don't be ridiculous, this wasn't "unintentional". Additionally, it's impossible to react proactively.

Re: Plagiarism

#170

Post by mnicole » Mon, May 14, 2012, 9:31 PM UTC

zeedotme wrote: post #154

jacquesm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really don't get it do you? > If it ever does happen, I assure you that all it takes is one email to office@thenextweb.com and we'll have it resolved. I'm sure it does. But the point is that you should ensure through process and not through policy that you do not end up with other people's stuff on your site without attribution or compensation. The fact that you'll take it down to avoid further damage is not enou…

We do have processes AND policy in place to make sure this doesn't happen. But it can still happen unintentionally and when it does, we react activity and proactively.

By telling the original authors you'll be sure to 'steer clear' of them in the future for being upset that they weren't credited until it made you look like an ass? Yikes.