Plagiarism

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Reiku, Dec 19, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    How?

    I have been accused of plagiarism by AN? How is my7 behaviour any different than those treating me? I assume intelligent people here can see my point without saying I am gonna get myself in more trouble. If it is such a big point, and making examples of me, then surely I am doing the site a favor?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    And I won't backtrack. My point, my post, is just as innocent as anyone elses!!!!
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    They are saying that you are lifting equations wholesale without giving the author credit. And they are right aren't they?
    You are saying that they do the same, but you have no proof.
    You either need to come up with proof, or say nothing till you do have proof.

    If you do find such proof, then you will be doing the site a favour.
    Post the proof, and Alpha will have to tell people to clean up their act.

    Come on.
    With Rpenner.
    It isn't likely that he has lifted equations wholesale and then rewritten the steps so as to cover his tracks, now is it?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Not whole, in part. So if some come here, recite a few equations of special relativity and they don't credit the author, why am I being lynched for such actions?

    Surely it should be universal here to assume such infractions... In fact, I never received an infraction, I got something worse. My post ripped from its origin, with large mod writing accusing me of plagiarism, which I had no effect to answer apart from here.

    Unfair me thinks. Total abuse of power from the low life AN.
     
  8. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Also, with Rpenner, no it's not. Not in whole.

    Possible he has used equations however without citing. Very possible concerning how mathematical they are. Much more than AN.
     
  9. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    What to do.
    Without insulting anyone, or making accusations, find examples where people are plagiarising. Find the original source. Then post both together and complain about it.

    What you need to look for is an unattributed string of equations leading to some novel conclusion claimed as the person's own. That is plagiarism.

    We can't accuse someone of plagiarism (henceforth abbreviated as P) every time they use E=MC squared.
    And you can't accuse someone of P just because what they are writing is very complex.
     
  10. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Sir this is the whole point. I never plagiarized any physics intentionally. I am at copy-right infingement which we both agreed.

    My arguement is, if I really have caused Plagiarism, then many more would be guilty equally. But as usual, I am lynched.

    The point is, I accuse no one of actually causing plagiarism, because then I would be equally too. Such freedom to recite equations have been open to debates here at this forum since the dawn of it's time.

    I am just some scarecrow the mods like to throw apples at.
     
  11. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    No, you are guilty of both.

    Plagiarism because:
    You did not give the author credit for the work.

    And copyright infringement because you both: (but one would have done)
    1. Did not make it clear that it was not your own work.
    2. Did not link to the original, or reference the work.

    If you don't understand now, I am going to have to give up trying to explain it.
    Perhaps I am not explaining it very well.
    Someone else might like to have a try.
     
  12. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    If that is your ruling, then I accuse everyone who has posted equations on such subjects and never have cited as guilty as well.

    I hate to say this,but I must since there is an overwhelming body of evidence in my favour.

    Besides, usually I'd credit what you said before about plagiarism, but it sounds like now you are backtracking that statement to mean something more sinister. Like I have intentionally went out my way to present the math to be my own, which I never did. Not citing is not evidence of Plagiarizing, like you yourself has admitted, but now you seem to be changing that point of view, no?
     
  13. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Here are the Dictionary definitions.
    (I'd better remember to link to the sources)


    Plagiarism
    pla·gia·rism   [pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] Show IPA
    noun
    The unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, as by not crediting the author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism

    Copyright Infringement
    Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

    Plagiarism is a thing to be avoided. It is more of a moral offence.
    If for example a member called Superwriter took a whole section from a book by Mark Twain and put it on here as his own, that would be plagiarism.
    It would not be a breach of copyright, because all Twain's work is out of copyright. You can do with it whatever you wish.

    Sometimes Plagiarism is also Copyright theft.
    So, if for example, someone on sciforums copies someone else's work and does not give them credit for it, and it is a work that is still in copyright, then
    they are committing plagiarism and also breaking the law on copyright.

    Sometimes something can be copyright theft and not plagiarism.
    If for example you quoted the entire paper written by Mr Chang,
    and explained exactly how you came by it and whose work it was,
    then that would not be plagiarism, but it might well be copyright theft.
    There is a limit to how much you can fairly quote from someone else's work.
    I believe it is called fair usage.

    It's pretty much a matter of using common sense and fairness.

    Please, someone, if Mister doesn't understand this, could someone else try.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
  14. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    If you recite the disctionary, is that to everyone, or just a message to my last post... I have been deeply saddened being called a plagiarist! I am nothing of the sort. An innocent arrangement of equations, where many have done similar acts, yet I am the poster boy.
     
  15. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    But it's assumed (and usually demonstrated) they understand that of which they post. You demonstrate time and again you don't.

    If I wrote a post on quantum field theory it'd be assumed (and I'd happily demonstrate) I'm giving my own words of someone else's work which I've learnt and understood. That's what rational discussion is all about. If I were just parroting someone else's work without understanding it then I'm being dishonest and it's not welcome here. Hence why your posts are often beaten with hammers.

    And without fail you've been wrong in multiple, basic, ways which demonstrates to everyone that when you then talk about more advanced stuff you're just pulling it out of your backside or just parroting. Everyone here can use Google or Wiki, they don't need you to essentially copy and paste (after introducing your own errors) material.

    There is no defence when the evidence is right there in CK's posts.

    You've had 20+ accounts here, you've had plenty of time to demonstrate a working honest understanding of material and you perpetually fail.

    You can parrot things you don't understand but that isn't really 'talking' any more than me copying words out of a translation dictionary is speaking a foreign language.

    I don't cut Mister any slack because he's used up all his slack.

    You really do love to whine and dig your own hole, don't you?

    Rpenner understands what he posts. He reads someone else's work, understands it and then reexplained it in the thread. That's fine. You don't understand it so you have to just lift, wholesale, people's equations and explainations. It's why you misunderstood Susskind, you don't actually grasp what he was saying, you just repeat phrases and buzzwords. That is a trillion miles from what Rpenner and I or anyone else do.

    If you just were honest and didn't try to misrepresent your level of knowledge you'd not have a problem. The issue is your dishonesty, not the posting of equations.

    Seriously, get off your cross.

    I am absolutely certain you're misrepresenting your level of understanding. To do that you lift things directly from other people's work, rather than explain/discuss it in purely your own words. That's the problem. That's your problem.

    A scarecrow who paints himself bright orange and runs around saying "Look at me, I'm an elephant!" and then complain when people whose attention you demand (hence all these threads whining and repeated reregistering and repeated dishonesty) say "Some of the things you're saying are incorrect".

    What do you expect? You come to a physics forum you know numerous doctorates, including both moderators, read, spout stuff which you know you don't understand and are then surprised when people notice all your mistakes? It's like me going to Germany, making up words and then being surprised when a German says "That isn't German!". You're seeking out people who are professionals in maths/physics and trying to BS them about their profession!

    No, there isn't. You're failing to understand the essential distinction between your postings and the postings of people like myself or Rpenner.

    Tell you what, when you come back why don't you list, explicitly and clearly and definitively, the areas of mathematical physics you feel you have a working understanding of and the level of that understanding. For example, I'd say I have a working understanding of much of quantum mechanics to postgrad level. My understanding of French is to GCSE level (that's age 16 for the non-British among us). I have an understanding of Welsh to age 14. I have zero understanding of Japanese.

    You're currently banned for the remainder of the year so you have plenty of time to compile that list. You may post it here or PM it to me but you really have no excuse not to be open about your understanding so we can all know what you do or don't know.
     
  16. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    . . . so . . who should I (always) quote for, say . . . F=MA (equation) . . .or has that been in the public domain so long that no reference is needed? . . . just how long must something be in the public domain so that it need not be source-referenced?

    Is not the internet a public domain?
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2011
  17. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    As long as you're not trying to pass of what you've written as your own work, I don't think there's any issue of plagiarism in posting equations.

    If I were to say, " I've developed this equation, F= G(m1m2/r^2)", I'd be plagiarising.

    If you say, the equation for gravitational attraction is ... and don't explicitly credit it to Newton, I don't consider that as plagiarism.

    I think the issue with Mister is he would post such and imply that it was his work.
     
  18. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    AlexG quote: "If you say, the equation for gravitational attraction is ... and don't explicitly credit it to Newton, I don't consider that as plagiarism."

    . . . happy to see that what YOU 'consider' correct . . . is correct . . . I'll sleep better tonight!
     
  19. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Sleep deep, with the fishes.
     
  20. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    RE: My post #33 . . . . "Is not the internet a public domain?" . . . no takers, I presume!
     
  21. RichW9090 Evolutionist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    151
    Yes, that would be plagiarism, indeed. But it is not the only way in which one committs plagiarism.

    Failing to go our of your way to recognize the source of material you use is also plagiarism.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    There's a difference between the professionals and you that I don't think you appreciate.

    The professionals understand the stuff they are writing about.

    Being a physicist or a mathematician or a medical doctor or an artist is not just about learning some jargon then jamming it together in random patterns. It's not about trying to fool people into thinking you know more than you do. It's about doing something real and useful with what you know. It's not about pretending.

    Suppose, assuming that I'm not a surgeon, I waltz into an operating theatre where a patient has been prepped for brain surgery. I am dressed up in my blue cover-alls, complete with surgical mask. I walk authoritatively up to the operating table, hold out my hand and call out "scalpel!" I'm handed one, and I talk about how I'm going to make an incision into the cranium to access the frontal lobe.

    As I go to make my first cut, one of the assisting doctors stops me and tells me I'm about to cut in the wrong place with the wrong tool. "I knew that!" I say. "Don't act like I'm an idiot. I'm studying for a Diploma in Brain Surgery and I've been reading medical textbooks for 2 years. Now, give this patient some more ether."

    I'm reminded that ether isn't used as an anesthetic. "Oh, sorry" I say "I am somewhat unconventional in my surgical ways."

    "The patient has a subdural haematoma, Doctor", somebody says.

    "Ah, yes, er... his breathing is a bit slow" I reply.

    "What are you talking about?"

    "His breathing. You know - the haematoma."

    "A haematoma has nothing to do with breathing!"

    "Of course not. I know that. All I meant was that we need to watch his breathing. Now, I'm going to use this MRI to cut his skull open."

    ---

    At what point do you think that the real experts in operating theatre realised that I had no actual medical training?

    Or perhaps you need a simpler example?
     
  23. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    It's much easier explaining things to Mister when he's banned than when he isn't.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page