Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Plagiarism

notes.unwieldy.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 326 posts

Re: Plagiarism

#301

Post by grandpa »

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…

Zee, I think it's pretty ridiculous that you're even getting the slightest bit annoyed about this. Needless to say, we'll be saying well clear of anything your are involved with in future. http://notes.unwieldy.net/post/23049725899/plagiarism

Re: Plagiarism

#302

Post by sdfgbdgfndgh »

andos wrote: post #34
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…

A case of poor timing, I think. TNW posts a non-attributed version of the article [1]. Author complains on twitter. Meanwhile, TNW notices the error and ninja-edits the post with proper attribution [2]. You check the updated post. Drama ensues on twitter. Edit. Oi, I'm not saying TNW is in the right, people. Just pointing out something that their CEO seems to have missed. [1]. http://cl.ly/0q1C3n1j323R3C131X0d/o [2].…

More like: TNW posts a non-attributed version of the article. Author complains on twitter. TNW sees this shits their pants and ninja-edits the post with poor attribution. People still complain. TNW ninja-edits the post one more time, now with proper attribution. The CEO (who looks like a total asshole in his pictures btw) posts an obvious PR Google Docs (??) letter to try and talk plagiarism good, which uses this post that tries to insinuate some kind of seconds -later-it-would-have-been-fixed-even-if-the-author-never-would-have-said-anything BS.

Re: Plagiarism

#303

Post by chris_wot »

droithomme wrote: post #288
grandalf wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this was staged and Zee never wrote any of those comments. The Google doc link is suspicious.

That is a very interesting theory. Do you believe his Twitter account was hacked then and he has been out of town and has no idea what the attacker has been posting there about this while impersonating him?

At this point, I'm invoking Hanlon's razor.

Re: Plagiarism

#304

Post by DanBC »

droithomme wrote: post #288
grandalf wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this was staged and Zee never wrote any of those comments. The Google doc link is suspicious.

That is a very interesting theory. Do you believe his Twitter account was hacked then and he has been out of town and has no idea what the attacker has been posting there about this while impersonating him?

...and had his HN account hacked, and was unaware of any of the posts being written here?

Re: Plagiarism

#305

Post by droithomme »

DanBC wrote: post #304
droithomme wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a very interesting theory. Do you believe his Twitter account was hacked then and he has been out of town and has no idea what the attacker has been posting there about this while impersonating him?

...and had his HN account hacked, and was unaware of any of the posts being written here?

Right, that too, apparently it's a big hack!

Re: Plagiarism

#306

Post by davidw »

Xylakant wrote: post #128
davidw wrote: post #71

Where are all the people defending "piracy" on this post? How much effort were a few paragraphs that got copied vs how much effort does it take to produce a movie, or a professionally recorded song?

The question is not whether pirating a movie is morally right or wrong but rather "how much damage to the internet and the society are we willing to accept when chasing people who copy movies?". Having to pay a fine when you're caught copying a song is fine. Having to pay inflated damage claims (tens of thousands of dollars for a single song) is not. Monitoring large portions of the internet only to support an indust…

I think it's a complex, and nuanced subject with no easy answers, and agree with you that things are likely tilted too far in favor of content producers. Draconian solutions are not a solution I favor.

That said, I have been here a while and see an awful lot of commentary that seems indicative that the authors neither think nor care much about the fate of content producers. There are plenty of other intelligent comments too, but I really did notice a big difference on this thread compared to one about piracy.

See mikeash's comment for instance, which says that piracy just isn't as bad as plagiarism.

Re: Plagiarism

#307

Post by koide »

GeneralMaximus wrote: post #299
koide wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Interestingly enough, most people will be able to understand exactly what you wrote there. People can easily recognize common words "by shape". They only ever have to look at the first and last letters. I'm not saying people won't notice there's something wrong with what you wrote. They will. But they'll be able to understand you perfectly despite that.

I'm aware people can understand that, but it's certainly not as easy as the properly formed words. I used that technique to make sure my point was carried across.

Re: Plagiarism

#308

Post by skore »

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.

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

Wow, just wow. This just crossed the bullshit horizon.

Re: Plagiarism

#309

Post by skore »

ChristianMarks wrote: post #276
zeedotme wrote: post #134

Zee again. Full response: http://bit.ly/JxoWae

A Google doc, very interesting. The use of bit.ly is also interesting--someone may unwittingly click the link and reveal himself through his Google account. Perhaps the intention is to discover who is reading it (for what purpose I can only speculate). It isn't posted on TNW for reasons that are unclear (as others have noted). Perhaps the intention is to crowdsource the editing until the statement eventually converge…

> innocent

Yeah, well, after reading his responses here, I wouldn't go with that word, but rather with another one that starts with in - and ends with competent.

Post reply on HN