Plagiarism

Post by derleth » Tue, May 15, 2012, 3:52 AM UTC

MSM wrote: post #100

Ahmes wrote: post #6

I'm pretty sure there is an XKCD about this. Didn't we conclude yesterday that there was a fundamental flaw in the original author's assumptions in how tips get reported and preliminary evidence suggests Taxi drivers are now making less ? Now that a major tech publication has picked up the story it may legitimately be cited as fact in a Wikipedia article. Now that a major tech publication has picked up the story it w…

The XKCD is a little different: 1) Find (false) fact on Wikipedia. 2) Include fact in your important paper (journal, etc) 3) Fact is found on wikipedia to be false, and is removed 4) Fact is later found in your journal, and is then added to Wikipedia with a reference to your important findings. 5) Fact cannot be removed because it was been referenced from a journal

Post by grandalf » Tue, May 15, 2012, 4:22 AM UTC

droithomme wrote: post #254

grandalf wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's clear from the screenshots the original author captured that you tried to deny responsibility after you changed the plagiarized content. If he didn't have the screenshots you might have gotten away with it. Since he had the screenshots, your posts all come off as dishonest (which they obviously are). Your attempt to bully the original author on Twitter looks bad too. I think every comment you make is digging a d…

Speaking of the screenshots, it's not only what you say, but on Zee Kane's twitter feed, he has accused the true author of having misrepresented the before and after screen shots: http://twitter.com/#!/Zee/status/202124995923681280 > Zee Kane: "he [Mr. Gross] doesn't have screenshots of the whole article…You don't that's pretty sly?" It is clear this is highly disingenuous argument and a false implication that Mr. Gr…

Post by marcamillion » Tue, May 15, 2012, 4:53 AM UTC

Post by chris_wot » Tue, May 15, 2012, 5:01 AM UTC

spc476 wrote: post #264

ilamont wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former journalist here. Some years ago I attempted to create a standard called "Source Blocks" (see http://www.ilamont.com/2008/11/my-new-journalism-experiment.... ). It's basically a paragraph of explanatory text that the author places at the end of the article, identifying what sources he/she used in the course of researching the article. It looked something like this. Sources cited, referenced, or consulted: Blog.…

It's not hard. Firefox under Unix has an interesting property. When you select text, you end up with the following targets for an X Window select operation: TIMESTAMP TARGETS MULTIPLE text/html text/_moz_htmlcontext text/_moz_htmlinfo UTF8_STRING COMPOUND_TEXT TEXT STRING text/x-moz-url-priv With this, I was able to add an extension to my editor to obtain the URL, pull the page, pull the title and generate an HTML BL…

Post by cellularmitosis » Tue, May 15, 2012, 5:17 AM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #176

billpatrianakos wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "yo…

You are correct, which is why I called what TNW did plagiarism in my parent post, and elsewhere in the thread. Their understanding of the concept is both sad and frustrating. (Check my comment history.) I'm making a separate point, that the contribution of the article in question is minor. And that, combined with the level of outrage, just makes me a bit uneasy.