A question on cross posting

[cybercoma]

Newspapers will have their own writer who uses their own words to describe the event. That writer would be fired for copying and pasting someone else's writing, as above.

I would think that in terms of limiting plagiarism on a site like this, where the writers are usually anonymous, it would be essential to not allow cross-posting. When the writer is anonymous and the writing exists elsewhere, it would be difficult to ensure it isn't stolen.

Rarely these days. They take stuff off the wire and reprint.

[cybercoma]

I think it goes beyond "cross-posting" when one copies and pastes from the writings of someone else and passes it off as one's own words on this forum.

From the forum rules:

Please do not try to pass someone else’s work as your own. Anyone caught committing plagiarism will be dealt with severely.

Severely, eh?

[betsy]

Everyone views plagiarism in the same way. If you copy and paste someone else's writing without attribution, it's plagiarism. Otherwise known as "stealing."

He wasn't talking about copy/paste. You should read the exchanges between us.

If I follow his rationale, the statement, "This is a spam!" had been posted by him and another poster.......

by his own standard, one of them is plagiarizing the other. Or, they both plagiarized someone who'd posted the exact statement in other forums. Not to say, he's been cross-posting, too.

Edited June 8, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

betsy, on 07 Jun 2016 - 05:27 AM, said:

And no, I didn't read that blog given by Waldo. I read another apologetics site's, which I frequently use for reference:

perhaps you don't recall; in that post I mentioned the blog reference was but one example of several returned by the tool I used to search for that multi-sentence phrasing you wrote.

.

What's that got to do with what I said? Read what you've quoted me, for crying out loud.....and understand what you're reading! You're trying to make a silly argument about a non-issue.

All I've said is to clarify which site I've read. And yes, there are several sites that carry the same statements - some are copy/paste.

I read GotQuestion's!

Edited June 8, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Rarely these days. They take stuff off the wire and reprint.

Yes.

Now that you've mentioned it.....yes, I did see some news items that carry identical statements like copy/pasted.

Edited June 8, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

He wasn't talking about copy/paste. You should read the exchanges between us.

If I follow his rationale, the statement, "This is a spam!" had been posted by him and another poster....

No, the sentence "This is spam." Is too short and simple to qualify as plagiarism when someone else says it. It would be reasonable to assume whoever said it was capable of coming up with that phrase independently. However, once you get into a full paragraph, as in Waldo's example, it is obvious you didn't come up with that independently. You admitted as much yourself. Whether or not other people also plagiarize does not lessen the fact that you stole those words and tried to pretend they were yours.

[betsy]

No, the sentence "This is spam." Is too short and simple to qualify as plagiarism when someone else says it. It would be reasonable to assume whoever said it was capable of coming up with that phrase independently. However, once you get into a full paragraph, as in Waldo's example, it is obvious you didn't come up with that independently. You admitted as much yourself. Whether or not other people also plagiarize does not lessen the fact that you stole those words and tried to pretend they were yours.

Facts are stated.

Do you know that some terms are not covered by copyright laws?

Works Not Covered By Copyright

You may want to use or incorporate someone else's work into your own. While the works of others may be protected by copyright, there are a class of works that fall outside the scope of copyright law. The following categories of work are not eligible for copyright protection, regardless of when they were created and whether or not they bear a copyright notice.

• Facts
• Works created by the United States Government
• Works not fixed in a tangible form of expression
• Ideas, concepts, principles, or discoveries
• Words, phrases, or familiar symbols

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/works-not-covered-copyright

I've shown the comparison between what I posted, and the others.

Like I've said.....mine was not copy/pasted. If my wordings doesn't meet your "standard," and if you're going to be so anal about it.......

.......and you would rather choose to project some ignorance about this...........

............that's not my problem already.

Edited June 8, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

It's not even so much a question of copyright, although plagiarism does violate copyright laws. It's a matter of being forthright and honest. Even public domain writing must be cited, even though it's in the public domain. It's not an issue of "my standard" or even this forum's rules. It's a basic principle of writing (that is too often ignored).

[betsy]

It's not even so much a question of copyright, although plagiarism does violate copyright laws. It's a matter of being forthright and honest. Even public domain writing must be cited, even though it's in the public domain. It's not an issue of "my standard" or even this forum's rules. It's a basic principle of writing (that is too often ignored).

[BubberMiley]

You're rolling your eyes at the commandment "Thou shalt not steal"?

[The_Squid]

and... what is this?

The authors were kings, fishermen, priests, government officials, farmers, shepherds, and doctors. From all this diversity comes an incredible unity, with common themes woven throughout. The Bible’s unity is due to the fact that, ultimately, it has one Author—God Himself.

The Bible was written by fishermen, kings, government officials, priests, farmers, shepherds, and doctors.......and yet, from all this diversity comes an incredible unity, with common themes woven throughout. That unity is due to a single fact: it ultimately has One Author – God Himself.

.

I was responding to him - in the context" that he views "plagiarism."

This is going around in circles with Betsy as she makes up her own definitions of words... in this case "plagiarism".

Can a Mod step in here and let us know whether the copy/paste nearly verbatim from a blog that Betsy didn't write is considered plagiarism on this forum?

I reported the exact passage that Waldo quoted. But it sounds as if Betsy thinks her week away was due to cross posting.

Let's hear from the Mods.

[Michael Hardner]

We already answered this - cut/pasting from another forum is either plagiarism or cross-posting, both of which aren't allowed.

[Bryan]

You're rolling your eyes at the commandment "Thou shalt not steal"?

The eighth commandment is in reference to taking physical property (and in many traditional Jewish commentaries actually only in the context of kidnapping). Neither copyright infringement nor plagiarism qualify as stealing in this context. Theft requires loss of physical property -- something must be missing. If I take your physical notes from you, then I stole them.

[Bryan]

We already answered this - cut/pasting from another forum is either plagiarism or cross-posting, both of which aren't allowed.

What about taking something we wrote here, and later using it in discussion on another forum -- you going to punish people for doing that?

[BubberMiley]

The eighth commandment is in reference to taking physical property (and in many traditional Jewish commentaries actually only in the context of kidnapping). Neither copyright infringement nor plagiarism qualify as stealing in this context. Theft requires loss of physical property -- something must be missing. If I take your physical notes from you, then I stole them.

Stealing credit is still stealing. God didn't specify physical property on the tablets. Torrenting counts too. Edited June 9, 2016 by BubberMiley

[Bryan]

Stealing credit is still stealing.

There is no biblical proscription against sharing of ideas with or without permission. Only in taking physical things (or people) that didn't belong to you.

God didn't specify physical property on the tablets.

He actually did:

The Hebrew word translated “steal” is “gneva”^[4] The Hebrew Bible contains a number prohibitions of stealing and descriptions of negative consequences for this sin. The Genesis narrative describes Rachel as having stolen household goods from her father Laban when she fled from Laban’s household with her husband Jacob and their children.^[5] Laban hotly pursued Jacob to recover his goods, and intended to do him harm, but Rachel hid the stolen items and avoided detection. Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7 apply the same Hebrew word to kidnapping (stealing a man) and demands the death penalty for such a sin.

The Hebrew word translated “steal” is more commonly applied to material possessions. Restitution may be demanded, but there is no judicial penalty of death. However, a thief may be killed if caught in the act of breaking in at night under circumstances where the occupants may reasonably be in fear of greater harm. The ancient Hebrew understanding honored private property rights and demanded restitution even in cases that might have been accidental, such as livestock grazing in another man’s field or vineyard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_steal

Torrenting counts too.

Definitely not -- nothing missing, no theft. Just copyright infringement.

[Smallc]

Interesting debate - not sure it's the thread.

[betsy]

It's been shown that my titles and OP are not cut/pasted.

I've shown too, that several Christian sites had copy/pasted the same information in describing the Bible and there doesn't seem to be any problem regarding copyright infringements. Like I've said, some apolgetic sites are created to help in discussions/debates.

I've used Christian apologetic scientific rebuttals that are written by those in the science field - they gave a blow-by-blow rebuttal/argument to specific objections/criticisms (and they've actually advised not to reveal them as sources)........they don't want atheists coming to the sites and reading the materials.

I can't remember exactly which forum I've used them. I think it was at Grace Centered forum - and that was a long time ago. Which reminds me, I've to find that source again.....

Furthermore, statements of facts and common knowledge, is not plagiarism.

As a general rule, a fact can be said to be 'common knowledge' when:

• it is widely accessible - you may not know the total population of China, but you would be able to find the answer easily from numerous sources.
• it is likely to be known by a lot of people
• it can be found in a general reference resource, such as a dictionary or encyclopedia.

For example:
Pterosaurs were the flying reptiles of the dinosaur age
'Everyone' knows this, so no citation is needed.

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/plagiarism/students/referencing/commonknowledge.html

I'm well-known for quoting and giving links whenever I support my claims. So much so that I'm being dissuaded from providing the same source(s).

Sometimes, it can't be helped that the same rebuttal/argument used in a topic would also be applicable to another thread - and one assumes that not all participants of one thread are participants of the other - therefore, quotes from a given source is repeated. That is indeed cross-posting (which is not allowed on this site) - and I say that rule stifles the discussion(s).

Therefore I assume, that's the reason why I can't post topics that are deemed "similar."

Deciding what subjects are "similar," is subjective.

They may be similar, but being presented from a different angle. To say that we can't present similar topics also limits the ideas for discussion.

On top of that, you've got to resurrect an ancient thread if your topic is similar - and post it in that thread!

I got dinged in another site for resurrecting what they call a, "dinosaur thread!"

I thought I was doing them a favor by doing what we're doing here.

The reason they cite is that - it doesn't look good to see threads at the top of the list that's been created in 2014!

There are topics that can go on forever, though. Like, "What Movie Have You Watched Lately," or "This Week In Islam," which is like a dated documentation. Some subjects must not be resurrected at all....but better to start a new thread about it. It depends on the subject.

Old threads that has so many pages, also must not be resurrected. It's better to start a new thread for it (and just give the link of the old thread for those interested). Those are just my suggestions.

No offense....but look at your Religion Section! There aren't that many new topics being created.

How many topics were created in 2016?

Having talked about the stiflement of ideas for discussion.....need we wonder why?

Edited June 14, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

I am good looking because I am rich

I am good looking because of my parents

I am good looking because I groom daily

You might claim these all have differing premises, but someone might argue they all have the premise that I am good looking as well.

Your threads are not devolving because you argue about creation, against macroevolution, who is the creator, but in all three cases your implicit premise is about creation (or intelligent design or whatever you term it).

You're mistaken.

The premise might be about your good looks, however the point of discussion is about the reason(s) for it!

Let's do this as an example. He presented three premise for discussion about the same thing - being good looking.

If I create a topic titled, Reasons Why I'm Good-Looking - all those factors given above will fall in this topic.

Therefore, no need to create separate topics for it unless you want an in depth discussion of one particular factor, with an angle that hasn't been presented in that general topic about the reasons for your good looks.

However, if I create a topic that says "I'm goodlooking because of my parent," - unless the topic above is already created -

this discussion will center on your parents, and why they are the reason for your good looks! You might even have to go with genetics! Who knows, you might even have to cite ANCESTRY.com.

See what I mean?

Furthermore, what may be "good looking" to you.....is entirely different from another's perspective! Are you really goodlooking, or you just think you are? That could be another discussion!

Edited June 14, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

It's been shown that my titles and OP are not cut/pasted.

I've shown too, that several Christian sites had copy/pasted the same information in describing the Bible and there doesn't seem to be any problem regarding copyright infringements. Like I've said, some apolgetic sites are created to help in discussions/debates.

if you say so! But... are you sure you've always provided cite attribution as to where you've sourced them from? Are you really, really sure?

.

I've used Christian apologetic scientific rebuttals that are written by those in the science field - they gave a blow-by-blow rebuttal/argument to specific objections/criticisms (and they've actually advised not to reveal them as sources)........they don't want atheists coming to the sites and reading the materials.

so... you're now admitting to not properly source citing parts of your posts. Because... because... you're advised not to by those sites? Oh my!

by the by... stating your reference sites don't want atheists visiting - is that like, "preaching to the converted only"?

.

Furthermore, statements of facts and common knowledge, is not plagiarism.

the example of your usage that I highlighted most certainly was not "statement of fact"... it's certainly a part of your faith, but not factual. It may be common knowledge within your faith structure, otherwise not.

but I'll ask you again: I provided a reference to one site (of 3 sites the tool I used found) that matched your multi-sentence paragraph wording... those 3 sites had identical wording to each other. For some reason your phrased structure wasn't exact; that is to say, you juggled words around slightly (or your non-attributed source site did), but the meaning/intent was identical. It's odd that, "factual common knowledge" would be shifted around slightly. Someone skeptical might think the 'juggle/shift' was used to give an appearance of uniqueness to counter possible claims of plagiarism.

.

I'm well-known for quoting and giving links whenever I support my claims. So much so that I'm being dissuaded from providing the same source(s).

so you say... well, except for those sites you claim ask you not to source cite them - except those, right?

.

Having talked about the stiflement of ideas for discussion.....need we wonder why?

if your 'stifling' presumes upon not permitting plagiarism or presumes upon not allowing cross-posting, I presume your 'stifling' concerns are misplaced and misconstrued.

.

[betsy]

betsy, on 14 Jun 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

I've used Christian apologetic scientific rebuttals that are written by those in the science field - they gave a blow-by-blow rebuttal/argument to specific objections/criticisms (and they've actually advised not to reveal them as sources)........they don't want atheists coming to the sites and reading the materials.

Waldo

so... you're now admitting to not properly source citing parts of your posts. Because... because... you're advised not to by those sites? Oh my!

by the by... stating your reference sites don't want atheists visiting - is that like, "preaching to the converted only"?

Oh boy....

........poor Waldo. Read what you've quoted again. Maybe you need to read it several times?

You're really struggling with comprehension.

Edited June 14, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Oh boy....

Because you are struggling with comprehension, you should know that it's still plagiarism even if your source dishonestly tells you to use it without attribution. That's because you are deliberately deceiving your reader into thinking you are writing something that you aren't actually writing.

[The_Squid]

Oh boy....

........poor Waldo. Read what you've quoted again. Maybe you need to read it several times?

You're really struggling with comprehension.

The Moderator cleared up that what you did is considered plagiarism.

Don't you believe the Moderator?

Here it is again for you:

We already answered this - cut/pasting from another forum is either plagiarism or cross-posting, both of which aren't allowed.

Edited June 14, 2016 by The_Squid

[betsy]

The Moderator cleared up that what you did is considered plagiarism.

Don't you believe the Moderator?

Here it is again for you:

Read it again. It says, "copy/paste."

Furthermore, read this again:

As a general rule, a fact can be said to be 'common knowledge' when:

• it is widely accessible - you may not know the total population of China, but you would be able to find the answer easily from numerous sources.
• it is likely to be known by a lot of people
• it can be found in a general reference resource, such as a dictionary or encyclopedia.

For example:

Pterosaurs were the flying reptiles of the dinosaur age

'Everyone' knows this, so no citation is needed.

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/plagiarism/students/referencing/commonknowledge.html

The responses are so typical. When you can't offer any legitimate rebuttals to arguments - you try to discredit the poster.

How lowly desperate and pathetic is that?

Edited June 15, 2016 by betsy

[The_Squid]

Read it again. It says, "copy/paste."

Furthermore, read this again:

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/plagiarism/students/referencing/commonknowledge.html

The responses are so typical. When you can't offer any legitimate rebuttals to arguments - you try to discredit the poster.

How lowly desperate and pathetic is that?

We already answered this - cut/pasting from another forum is either plagiarism or cross-posting, both of which aren't allowed.

Maybe MH could clarify it for you directly...

Is it considered plagiarism MH?