Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 05:03 PM
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]

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 05:48 PM
Kinglizard, Springer:
I'm sorry--I reread the original post and realized that my eyes skimmed over the line


I was thinking you guys were coming down on all external quoting, hence the question about copyright vs. plagarism. The fact that it was bolded makes it even more embarrassing that I missed it

I'll slide back into the shadows now...

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 05:51 PM
MCory1, don't worry about it Bud. Believe me, I'm with ya, I do the same thing all the time. lol

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 07:04 PM
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 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 or DU, Kos, etc., does one need to source that article as a basis for the argument against such an idea?


posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 07:34 PM
I can't really claim to be shocked that this phenomenon has come about, but I am disgusted. Presumably the point of plagiarism is to look smart, and presumably the point of looking smart is to be respected, but what enjoyment does on get out of illegitimate respect?

I guess it's just meant to be. Only an idiot would want respect he didn't earn, but that works out perfectly because only an idiot would be completely incapable of earning it on his own.

Edit to add, since I can already hear the reply:
It's not meant to be anymore obviously. There will soon be fewer idiots on ATS, if we really have any who are beyond reform.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by The Vagabond]

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 07:59 PM
Actually, grabbing graphics and using them as Avatars is NOT fair use, and while many artists don't bother pursuing the matter, there are a great many who absolutely forbid it.

But as you say, this isn't the thread to discuss that. But I did want to make it clear that it is NOT OK to simply use someone's artwork and modify it for an Avatar.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 08:35 PM
I think that it should be discused in this thread Jadette, I mean isnce it does have to do with the topic of the thread.

Personally, if I see a picture I really like, and the artist has'nt put anything up saying not to use it, I copy it, tweak it a little and use it, really it's showing respect for the artisit, that you think there art is so good, you want other people to see it. But of course, if an artisit ever asked me to remove a picture that they created, I would.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:03 PM

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:

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).

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:15 PM
Whoa, I have read so much of Rushs' newsletter here, I thought it was OK.

Same with Avatars. Looks like the magazine stand at the 7-11.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:16 PM
Once upon a time, before email, there was something primitive called letter writing. In it, you couldn't ctrl+c ctrl+v to bring one letter into the one you were writing. For the most part, too, people didn't start their paragraphs with "When you said, 'blah blah', I thought...", and cutting sentences from the original letter and pasting them into the one being written, though easier, was generally frowned upon.

Yet, somehow people were able to respond to letters -- often weeks later -- and the person getting the response somehow knew what was being responded to. It is known as the ancient craft of conversing in complete sentences. Despite popular belief these days, you can communicate what someone has said without directly quoting them. More often than not, by you summarizing what the other person said, you give them an idea of how you interpreted their idea, in case you mistook what they meant.

That wasn't a dig against anyone in particular (I originally had the paragraph quoted, but figured that might be in bad form considering the content of this post
), 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...

Sigh, rant over.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:53 PM
New Site Tag For Quoting External Sources

From now on, please use the new quoting tag specific to external content sources.

Surround your snippet and link to an external source with these new tags:
[ex] --> Begin external source content
[/ex] --> End external source content

It will look like this:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Donec mollis nisl sed velit. Mauris aliquam. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Nam nec tellus ac est egestas tempor. Nam dapibus, sem nec dictum vestibulum, leo libero nonummy est, nec pellentesque sem neque a eros. Curabitur egestas, lectus sit amet accumsan auctor, sapien quam aliquet ligula, sed luctus enim orci nec diam. Nunc hendrerit. Donec sit amet nisi in diam blandit accumsan. Etiam sem leo, lacinia nec, viverra nec, congue non, arcu. Sed metus. Nunc vitae justo at sapien cursus lacinia. Sed molestie. Ut elit.

Vestibulum elit mi, blandit fermentum, suscipit nec, tristique non, lorem. In a nibh. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Nulla quis elit. Aliquam erat volutpat. Donec non dui at ipsum accumsan ornare. Sed at ante. Curabitur interdum. Phasellus sed felis. Proin semper imperdiet arcu. Praesent tristique sollicitudin nulla. Curabitur volutpat viverra nisl. Maecenas a ipsum ut libero tincidunt lacinia. Fusce arcu.

Mauris bibendum tempor nibh. Maecenas semper, elit faucibus porttitor dignissim, nisi elit condimentum lectus, ullamcorper luctus diam ligula convallis purus. Maecenas luctus sem eget erat. Cras imperdiet sollicitudin mauris. Suspendisse orci. Praesent cursus justo cursus ipsum suscipit vestibulum. Nullam velit justo, tempus eu, fermentum ac, accumsan id, nunc. Nulla lectus nisl, tincidunt vitae, fermentum in, hendrerit a, quam. Cras sagittis metus quis elit. Morbi vitae enim ut sapien scelerisque vestibulum. Suspendisse sed orci. Donec tincidunt mauris eget magna. Praesent feugiat. Sed mi mauris, vehicula non, feugiat vel, adipiscing quis, lectus. Pellentesque eget orci. Aliquam lorem. Vestibulum tempor est ut mauris. Duis urna urna, semper sed, consectetuer non, tincidunt at, risus.

Thank you.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:04 PM
A related topic that has come up in this thread...

"Fair Use is rarely fair."

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 is completely up to the owners.

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:06 PM
So from here on out, when quoting a source outside of ATS--be it an article, journal, etc.--do not use {quote} then {/quote}, use [ex] then [/ex]?

Just making sure on this, SO.

edit: self-evident; apparently so.
Please disregard...*waves*


[edit on 2-1-2006 by Seekerof]

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:17 PM
Question about the "ex" tag. ALP standards dictate that a 40+ word quote should be separated, but quotes less than that shouldn't be. Instead they should simply be quoted (" blah ") with a source at the end.

I occasionally, when summarizing something from another website, would say something "along these lines" with the source quoted somewhere in the post. If that quote were to be external, would that be considered unacceptable now, and if so, how many words would necessitate an ex tag?

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:29 PM
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.


[edit on 2-1-2006 by Seekerof]

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:42 PM
Any amount of verbatim text from another source, from one sentence, to the maximum allowed should now be contained by the tags: [ex](external stuff)[/ex].

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:52 PM
Thanks, SO.
Corrected the above post I linked by simply adding a bold snip.


posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:52 PM
Does that mean that a small amount of "text from another source" which is then linked to isn't allowed anymore?

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:02 PM

This is only a test

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:17 PM
JJ, you mean like taking a sentence or short set of words from another site, and making the sentence itself the link? From what I understand whats in this thread, I'd say, no, best not to do that, and just use these "ex" tags. I think that you'd have to us the ex tags even if you want to quote "a small amount of text from another source".

They look nice and schnazzy, for what its worth, and it will be nice to have a quick visual reference to whats from another site and whats previous stuff from the in-thread conversation.

new topics
top topics
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in