I'm sort of shocked really, I never really thought that plagarism was actually a prevalent (sp?) issue on the site.
Also, I have a question, or rather would like to clear something up, and before I ask, yes I have read all the posts, especially the admins/mods, but
I am still a little uncertain about something.
If a person makes a very long post, and I see alot odf different things in the post that I would like to respond to, but thre amount exceeds the 15%/3
paragraphs, am I not supposed to do that, even if I put it in quotes and show who it's origonally posted by?
I'm sorry if this is something that's already been answered, it's just I did'nt see the answer.
Edit To Add:
I'm wondering, would'nt it, if just to keep the site out of trouble, be easier to just have members except the terms of a statement, basically
saying that ATS can not be held responsible for the actions of it's members.
Just a thought.
[edit on 1/2/2006 by iori_komei]
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**, page 2
privacy
reply posted on 2-1-2006 @ 07:04 PM by junglejake
Springer, you mentioned "idea" as a criteria. Could you flesh this definition out more (preferably in the original post so everyone can/will see)?
For example, if I read through a website such as tonguetied.us... and, based on all of the information provided in there, come to the conclusion that political correctness has gone overboard in western civilization, does that website have to be sourced, even if none of their stories are specifically referenced nor any quotes taken from them?
I believe I make the point of quoting in one way or another, be it through quote tags or marks("), if I use even three words of another person's. However, I have not sourced summaries I've made or ideas that someone else made a good case for that I adopt as my own. Also in talking about opposing viewpoints, when countering a point that will probably come up because I read it on MoveOn.org or DU, Kos, etc., does one need to source that article as a basis for the argument against such an idea?
Danke!
For example, if I read through a website such as tonguetied.us... and, based on all of the information provided in there, come to the conclusion that political correctness has gone overboard in western civilization, does that website have to be sourced, even if none of their stories are specifically referenced nor any quotes taken from them?
I believe I make the point of quoting in one way or another, be it through quote tags or marks("), if I use even three words of another person's. However, I have not sourced summaries I've made or ideas that someone else made a good case for that I adopt as my own. Also in talking about opposing viewpoints, when countering a point that will probably come up because I read it on MoveOn.org or DU, Kos, etc., does one need to source that article as a basis for the argument against such an idea?
Danke!
reply posted on 2-1-2006 @ 09:03 PM by CyberKat
Originally posted by Hellmutt
"Fair use" and blahblah. It´s another discussion.
If you´re not using your own words, remember to use "" or quote-tags and provide the source.
Hi There,
It sounds as if some of the mods in this thread are getting fed up with stupid questions. However, since the last thing I want is to do something invavertently to jeopardize thiis site, I have a couple questions of my own:
First of all, let me say that to the best of my knowledge, I have never plaguerised on this site. I have a pretty good idea of the meaning, but it is still a little blurred to me.
The first question I have is concerning "Fair Use" and blahblah......." Why is that another discussion? It seems very relevant to me, espeically as I have, as I'm sure many of you have, seen a clause, or one similar to it like:
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not necessarily been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, some of the material in this web site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. When such material is published on the Web, clicking a link or a hyperlink constitutes a request for information. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this web site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information regarding US Copyright Law, go to: www.law.cornell.edu...
I have not personally used it, however, I see it often enough on other sites. I assumed that by making this "disclaimer", if I ever found it to be necessary in the future, that it would not be plaguerism, or copywrite infringement due to the disclaimer. I don't see why this is another discussion. I would seriously like the answer to this. I mean this most respectfully.
Also, I started a thread, a while back: When Words Lose Their Meaning, People Lose Their Freedom in which I wanted to use an article that I really found interesting, and hoped that others might also. Anyway, to make this story as short as possible, the article clearly stated that the material was copywrited, and if anyone wanted to use any of it, to contact the owner of the copywrite. Well, I did, and immediately received back a response to my email saying, "I would be delighted!" So, still being fairly new here at the time, I was still sort of unsure, so I emailed the only person that I could think of at the time, Simon Gray (I was not yet aware of SO, or Springer or some of the others I could have asked.) After receiving no answer, I figured it must not be a big deal, so I went ahead an posted. I got no warnings or anything.......anyway, is what I just wrote O.K. to do? (I only did it once).
), but just a comment on the collapse of written conversation. Writing a summary of the other person's point and responding to it, or
even better, integrating someones point into your response. Well, that and I keep getting these emails with comments like, "yep" or "I can't do
that" where they didn't even bother to quote the original email so I have to check my sent items... 
reply posted on 2-1-2006 @ 10:04 PM by SkepticOverlord
A related topic that has come up in this thread...
"Fair Use is rarely fair."
fairuse.stanford.edu...
There is a great deal of good information within the linked site above. But the bottom line, if a copyright holder disagrees with your interpretation of "fair use", they can take action and usually achieve resolution.
As this website attempts to operate with an extremely high standard of ethics, we generally strive to respect the intellectual property of others... no matter the source. As such, we are imposing legally tested standards of referencing and quoting online sources. No more than a small percentage of the original material, and a clear link to the source.
Any interpretation of "fair use" within content on AboveTopSecret.com is completely up to the owners.
"Fair Use is rarely fair."
fairuse.stanford.edu...
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. Another way of putting this is that fair use is a defense against infringement. If your use qualifies under the definition above, and as defined more specifically later in this chapter, then your use would not be considered an illegal infringement.
So what is a "transformative" use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.
There is a great deal of good information within the linked site above. But the bottom line, if a copyright holder disagrees with your interpretation of "fair use", they can take action and usually achieve resolution.
As this website attempts to operate with an extremely high standard of ethics, we generally strive to respect the intellectual property of others... no matter the source. As such, we are imposing legally tested standards of referencing and quoting online sources. No more than a small percentage of the original material, and a clear link to the source.
Any interpretation of "fair use" within content on AboveTopSecret.com is completely up to the owners.
reply posted on 2-1-2006 @ 10:29 PM by Seekerof
junglejake, I understand what your asking.
At any rate, so that it can be corrected or commented upon, I just did a two quote separation from an external source, here.
I am hoping someone will comment if this is appropriate or not, in relation to being within ATS new quoting guidelines.
seekerof
[edit on 2-1-2006 by Seekerof]
At any rate, so that it can be corrected or commented upon, I just did a two quote separation from an external source, here.
I am hoping someone will comment if this is appropriate or not, in relation to being within ATS new quoting guidelines.
seekerof
[edit on 2-1-2006 by Seekerof]
