You seem stuck on the LEGALITY of the issue. I really have no care wether or not it's legal. I was speaking of the morality of it. Also, your daughter isn't claiming to have created the piano is she?
Neither was I claiming to create the concept that the Quran states the age of the universe. I was merely Highlighting or quoting the Quran and showing a couple of equations. There was no harm inflicted on anyone, as I even quoted things positevely, and if my quotation have resulted in any type of discovery, the original owners of the site would have thanked me for advocating their views and distributing it around. So morality nor legality were issues. Your anger and rudeness in how you sought to hurt members of sciforums and insult them publically without following the protocol of the site and allowing the moderator to handle the issue was ideed an issue though and you actions were quite malicious, immoral, and perhaps illigal.
You dont understand that you copied verbatum a series of equations, and quotes, from another site? You didnt "merely highlight or quote" the quran, you copied the work of another person and presented it as your own. Theres a difference. The immorality lies in your theft of someones work.
Excuse me, but your the one who started with the insults, I merely pointed out different instances of plagerism.
There was no theft....can't you tell the difference between errors, being fast, slight oversights, ect.... You are on the offensive and malicious for a simple error or oversight. The reason that I didn't respond to your first post on the subject, because I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you're just providing us with the link and being courtous in making a correction. The link was already provided by you and thus there was no reason for any addition. I never attacked you untill you opened like a zillion other threads and PMd me and accused me of plagerism and theft. I didn't even look into Ethics and morality until you PMd me the site to show me where to exactly look and told me congratulations. Your intent is malicious and you're evil and it shows all over you. Go check the post, and you'll find the link added, and thus you have no grounds for further ranting. If your intent was to gain my utter disrespect and hatred for you, consider yourself successfull. Good bye. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Originally you claimed that you summarized part of the quran and used some simple equations for that work. The respective times between my post of quoted matrerial above and your edit. My intentions were not to be malicious, but to point out direct plagerism, and make those doing it aware that someone was actually paying attention. In your thread, you made a post mocking that I had pointed out you plagerised the work. You made the same post in the closed thread. You were the first to show malicious intent and anger, please do not try to paint me in that negative light.
Take a number, No! Try being a little more sincerely inquisitive or else a little less unnecessarily provocative. For instance, can you tell the difference: - So my partner happens to be someone who, at present, needs some psychological help. Which method do you suggest? - "Look, you're tired. You're strung-out. You need some time and maybe a little bit of help to get things back together how you want them." - "You know you're freakin' crazy, right? Do you enjoy being insane?" If I remind her that she's freaking insane, and do so bitterly, should I expect her to rush to the opportunity for help? Hardly. She's a human being, just like me. Yeah, find thirty-five cents, or fifty cents, or whatever the hell it costs to dial a payphone, and call someone who cares. Look, No!, most of us are aware both of the forum policies regarding plagiarism and the amount of it that goes on. And as you point out: Well, morality is relative. If our Sciforums authors were taking profit or fame, I might have a greater moral problem with the way some people plagiarize. But the stake isn't so great that people care. The best way to stop plagiarism? Well, the plagiarizing author generally isn't, in such a forum as this, prepared to defend the assertions put forth; that's why they let someone else do the talking. Seize on that. If you make the base assertions look foolish enough, the plagiarizing author will eventually disclaim them. I admit that the titanic "Three Acts and a Prologue" topic I referred you to in your other topic about legitimate posts seems an absolutely pointless endeavor. But there is a correlation worth exploring: during that argument I addressed at least one post that was copied and pasted from a hate website. People hammered down against that; I can't claim direct responsibility, or even indirect--it could be entirely coincidental. These days we don't get as many. Of late, though, people have been recycling stale issues about Christianity; they have every reason to want to hide their sources, which are either constituted of superstition and wives' tales and have been passed around like a bad Dear Abby column, or else are so laden with an agenda as to forfeit objectivity. Push people to their sources. If they don't want to hand over a source, attribute the dishonesty, the bigotry, the hatred, to the poster. I guarantee you, they'll seek separation. And it's a long process. There's lotsa li'l doggies to train for this circus.
Dear people, we are not submitting articles to respectable scientific journals. Who cares if you give the proper reference? Some people copy paste from websites and pretend it is their work? Well, good for them. They look like idiots when someone discovers it. I wonder if I would copy paste something I published myself without a reference would be considered plagiarism. I think I lost the copyright after submitting it.
Funny, how do you quickly forget that you are the one that first PMed me with mocking words congratulating me for making your Plagerism list. My friend, you are a liar and you are evil. Your intent is foul and that is far worse than making a stupid reference error. Your actions are not errors but intentional. It wasn't enough for you to start the zillionth defammation lists without even checking with the posters or the moderators, You had to make sure that I was looking, and you PMed me, probably along with all your other victims to rub the whole thing in. So in my dictionary, you're evil, problem starter, complainer, and your latest apology private message is not accepted. PS.......When you insult someone in public, be a man and apologize in public, PM apologies get on my nerves.
Re: Take a number, No! Tiassa, very good suggestion. Can you perhaps show "NO" a demonstration of how your technique should be applied correctly. We don't want to leave No with such big words of yours to figure out on his own. I'll play the role of the "plagerising author" and you can play "How No should behave when he find out that someone forgot to show the link". The thread in question is: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=30150&perpage=20&pagenumber=1 Thank you.
this was a very interesting thread to read Although it became very negative and very angry. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Plagerism is an interesting issue. I wonder though, is it really Shakespeare who wrote all those stories? Or any of the great classics? Who really stole who? How do we really know? I don't like plagerism either. It's very unoriginal and very theiving of the person who does it but it's unfortunately something that is very common in this day and age and most probably in the old days as well. That gives me a thought, all this talk about the Quran, and possibly in the same vein, the bible, and all the relgious texts, who really writes them? Something to ponder on. It would hurt very badly if someone stole something of yours that you created as an art piece or story. But the bearer would never know until they themselves have had it done to.
Is someone going to hit me if I say that plagiarism (and other types of copying) starts when people start looking for fame or fortune?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! OH! I never thought of that! That is a good question. I guess people want fame and fortune all the time. Wasn't it that Warhol guy who said everyone has 5 mins of fame? Good or bad.
So what? I do too. Who gives a shit? There's a difference between saying, "Hey look what I found on the internet." (without any reference), and saying, “Hey I made this up myself.” (when you got it from somewhere else). Usually when people post something from another site, it is obvious they got it from somewhere. It is not necessary to put an actual reference on it.
<i>There's a difference between saying, "Hey look what I found on the internet." (without any reference), and saying, “Hey I made this up myself.” (when you got it from somewhere else).</i> Yes, but the point is, if you've found something on the internet you should give credit where credit is due. There's also a difference between saying "Hey look what I found on the internet" and saying nothing at all about the text you've ripped off from somewhere. If people know you found it on the internet, at least they can probably track down the source with a search engine. It's still lousy referencing, and it should still be credited, but at least you aren't actually giving people the impression you wrote it when you didn't. <i>Usually when people post something from another site, it is obvious they got it from somewhere. It is not necessary to put an actual reference on it.</i> Wrong. It is not always obvious. How would you feel if you spent an hour or two (or longer) writing something for your web site, only to have it copied by somebody else without saying where it came from or who wrote it? I guess you'd be happy with that, right?
First of all, usually when people post something from an outside source, they usually at least acknowledge that it came from somewhere else. A person that really wants to know where the source is might paste an excerpt on Google, and run a search. Sometimes, a person might include a link to where they got it from. In some cases, they don’t even need to copy anything. A simple link alone should suffice. With or without a link to me is just fine. But I do think asking people to cite all the exact copyright information is asking too much. A link at the most is just fine. Asking people to cite the date, author, title, etc. is pretty extreme. I could really give a rat if I spend a good deal of time writing something, and somebody else takes a portion of my effort and pastes it somewhere without citing me as the source.
Quite simply, no it does not. As is noted here <a href="http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16604">cut-n-past policy</a> and here <a href="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20330">New Site Rules</a> sciforums policy is not only against plagiarism but against the bulk copy-n-pasting of text; even that of other posters. The question is then whether the moderators do enough to enforce this policy. Towards that question I have some thoughts. One is that it is often difficult to identify when plagiarism has occurred. A moderator cannot be expected to search out every sentence of every post in order to identify if it is original or not. Even if they did ones search capability is limited. It is simply impractical to the point of absurdity for them to make the attempt for every post on the board. Another consideration is this particular mode of communication. As I perceive it, electronic forums of this nature fall somewhere in-between conversation and publication. Certainly none of us are profiting in any fiscal sense from our postings nor do we receive any formal recognition for our contributions. It is also similar to conversation in that it is open-ended, queries, responses, and clarifications are expected unlike in publication. However, it is still a publication in the sense of it being available for public consumption. I therefore find that the deference towards literary rigor likewise falls somewhere in the gray area. Certainly blatant and large-scale plagiarism is to be avoided and eliminated where it is identified. And I find that it generally is. As to the ethical consideration I find that, as with most moral valuations, intent plays a large role. Indeed, I agree that intentionally passing off another's work as your own is morally wrong. However, I find that few people really intend this. More often is it simply a matter of laziness. It's simply easier to copy and paste a completed statement or argument that supports your position than to write it yourself. But I do stand against such plagiarism as an attempt to flood a forum or a thread without having to extend any personal effort. I find this behavior unethical in that it runs contrary to the very reason for this community's reason for existence. It is a place for personal communication, discussion, and debate... for sharing ideas. This type of posting negates that purpose. In argument, one should attempt to provide a proper reference, particularly when it is intrinsic to the support of one's position. To not do so is disingenuous; it is an attempt to claim the backing of authority without allowing that authority to be scrutinized and evaluated. In short, it's an illegitimate argument. Unfounded support is simply invalid. In other cases, as in the cited case with Flores, sometimes what is being quoted is the argument itself, while support for the argument is offered first hand. In this case I do not find such quotations to necessarily be unethical. As in this case, the quotation is merely the proposition for the argument while the argument itself is properly referenced or original. While I still would prefer that proper references are given, I do not find it strictly unethical but acceptable given the nature of the communication. I might, for instance, adopt an argument on Plato's forms without strictly referencing Plato himself. As with most ethical questions the answer is largely relative, dependant upon the specifics of the situation and the intent of the behavior. But I find your initial statement to be unfounded. Sciforums most definitely does not endorse plagiarism but specifically denounces and works to eliminate it. Whether it does so effectively or diligently enough is a personal valuation but I find that it does a pretty good job considering the scope and nature of the problem as well as the context of the situation. Personally, I wonder at your motivation for attending it so harshly and wonder if it's truly honest and not rather hypocritical. Do you, for instance, reference your sources every time you repeat a joke you've heard? ~Raithere
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2003/copyrights.html Also says 2/3rds of adults dont care for copyrights. Relation?
