But the 4th option is something that can be considered plagiarism because it will not be noticed clearly even if it has an disguised source.
That disguise makes it partially plagiarism because you are making it seem like your wrote it. It's more difficult to create that disguise in example #4 than to do what was shown in cases 1-3. You are technically putting more effort into hiding the source than showing it. 
Topic: ㅤ (Read 419 times)
If I want to reference somebody, it means I want to give someone credit for his or her works. But if I give such credit and hide it so that the person I am giving the credit and others will not notice that I have given the author the credit. I think the reason for the credit is defeated. Giving someone credit should happen in a simple and straightforward manner.
Regardless of what style the poster uses to credit the original author, as long as they provide the source to the original post then I don't think it's plagiarism. But the 4th option is something that can be considered plagiarism because it will not be noticed clearly even if it has an disguised source.
I don't feel that options 1, 2, and 3 are a problem for most people as they have a clearly visible source and the poster probably has its own style to do so.
I don't feel that options 1, 2, and 3 are a problem for most people as they have a clearly visible source and the poster probably has its own style to do so.
It should be made OBVIOUS that whatever you are quoting is not your own words..
It should not be easy to mistake quotes words as the posters own words..
The poster absolutely should not edit words like “I” “WE” or “US” into the quoted text to further trick readers into believing that the quoted text is the posters own words..
The link containing the original text should be obviously attached to the quoted text, and not just hidden in a bunch of other irreverent links to further confuse readers into believing that the text is the posters original words but barely escape a permaban because “the link was there”..
Ratimov...
It should not be easy to mistake quotes words as the posters own words..
The poster absolutely should not edit words like “I” “WE” or “US” into the quoted text to further trick readers into believing that the quoted text is the posters own words..
The link containing the original text should be obviously attached to the quoted text, and not just hidden in a bunch of other irreverent links to further confuse readers into believing that the text is the posters original words but barely escape a permaban because “the link was there”..
Ratimov...
Maybe article below will make this thread easier to understand and how it should be done. This means that if everything in a post meets the stated criteria, then the post is not called plagiarism. Regarding quotation marks, because not everyone cares about it or doesn't understand that it is one of journalistic ethics, I think it can be understood, because there are definitely a lot of members here who don't have a journalist background.
Let's look at the post made by stonybrook (link below), in that article, they copied my quoted points above, the contents exactly the same as the one on USG, and only included a hyperlink to the source. This mean, this is a normal thing that can be done
Source 1: https://guides.library.stonybrook.edu/citations/avoid-plagiarism
Source 2: https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit08/credit08_03.phtml
How do you avoid plagiarizing?
* Give the author of the material credit by " documenting" or " citing" your sources (terms which mean you credit your source).
* Give credit whenever you use a direct quote by placing it in quotation marks and giving the author credit.
* Give credit whenever you paraphrase (state/write in a different way) a thought, idea, or words within the research paper and at the end of the paper in the bibliography
* Give credit within a research paper through footnotes or parenthetical remarks.
* Give credit at the end of a research paper in the bibliography.
* Give the author of the material credit by " documenting" or " citing" your sources (terms which mean you credit your source).
* Give credit whenever you use a direct quote by placing it in quotation marks and giving the author credit.
* Give credit whenever you paraphrase (state/write in a different way) a thought, idea, or words within the research paper and at the end of the paper in the bibliography
* Give credit within a research paper through footnotes or parenthetical remarks.
* Give credit at the end of a research paper in the bibliography.
Let's look at the post made by stonybrook (link below), in that article, they copied my quoted points above, the contents exactly the same as the one on USG, and only included a hyperlink to the source. This mean, this is a normal thing that can be done
Source 1: https://guides.library.stonybrook.edu/citations/avoid-plagiarism
Source 2: https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit08/credit08_03.phtml
You are right on this that is why we have the quote tag and it is equivalent to quote and I quote making it appear that you don't own the sentence or portion of the article but simply quoting...
Ratimov didn't mention it in his OP, but I am pretty sure you could also use italicized fonts in quotation marks to copy certain content and that would be fine as well. It needs to be clear you are not trying to pass it off as your own and admins can easily see what exactly is copy-pasted. I could say something like this for example:
Suchmoon said "put it in quote tags and remove all doubt". But Ratimov doesn't think it's necessary, and he stated: "this is not required and is not required by anyone".
Even though those two sentence segments don't belong to me and I copy-pasted them, no one could look at the sentence above and think that I have plagiarized. It's clearly indicated who said it and the copy-pasted content is easily recognizable. Whether or not it should be done is a completely different ting though.
The 2 is not bad either but 1 is the best. I can never use 2, it is a way some people might later modify how they include link in a way that is irritating.
I see "option 2" (with a link at the bottom) a lot, but I don't like it. By omitting the quote button it's not instantly clear that it's a quote, and if someone were to quote part of that post, chances are the fact that it was a quote already disappears completely. Example:Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.
This is better:
Quote from: https://cointelegraph.com/news/el-salvador-president-predicts-gigantic-price-increase-for-bitcoin
Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.
All these examples have the same error, since the quoted material should be marked with quotation marks.
This is not required and is not required by anyone.I will say more, even if I quote like this:
That's another loophole. It may not be plagiarism, but it sure is a copyright violation.Quote
~
this will be quite enough to avoid accusations of plagiarism.My preferred option (let's call it #5) would be this:
Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele made yet another bullish Bitcoin (BTC) prediction soon after the International Monetary Fund had urged his government to remove Bitcoin’s status as legal tender.
Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.
The president cited Bitcoin’s scarcity case, emphasizing there are “more than 50 million millionaires” in the world, and there is not enough Bitcoin if each one of them wanted to own at least 1 BTC.
Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.
The president cited Bitcoin’s scarcity case, emphasizing there are “more than 50 million millionaires” in the world, and there is not enough Bitcoin if each one of them wanted to own at least 1 BTC.
Or, now that I think about it, this would be even better (but I don't use this myself):
Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele made yet another bullish Bitcoin (BTC) prediction soon after the International Monetary Fund had urged his government to remove Bitcoin’s status as legal tender.
Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.
The president cited Bitcoin’s scarcity case, emphasizing there are “more than 50 million millionaires” in the world, and there is not enough Bitcoin if each one of them wanted to own at least 1 BTC.
Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.
The president cited Bitcoin’s scarcity case, emphasizing there are “more than 50 million millionaires” in the world, and there is not enough Bitcoin if each one of them wanted to own at least 1 BTC.
Putting something in quote is enough to show the public that you are not trying to make it look like the content is yours. Hence the quote tags. I still wouldn't do that without placing a source link. You would most certainly be safe from getting banned, but maybe a mod would consider deleting your post. I personally see if as an unneeded gamble.
You are right on this that is why we have the quote tag and it is equivalent to quote and I quote making it appear that you don't own the sentence or portion of the article but simply quoting, I have done it several times but you have to insert the link where you get the text for reference so to invite readers to check your source to justify your post and making it not appear out of context.
If I am a moderator or if I want to report plagiarism to a moderator, I will not consider 1, 2 and 3 as plagiarism.
Obviously, they are not. In as much there is no standard or professional way of referencing in this forum, such as APA style etc, any style can go.
However, I do no see the reason anyone should use the number 4 option in referencing. If actually I want to reference someone and then hide the reference, to what purpose? Maybe, tempting the moderator or bringing an innovation?
Obviously, they are not. In as much there is no standard or professional way of referencing in this forum, such as APA style etc, any style can go.
However, I do no see the reason anyone should use the number 4 option in referencing. If actually I want to reference someone and then hide the reference, to what purpose? Maybe, tempting the moderator or bringing an innovation?
Option 2 is practically the best way to go about putting a source on a post. It's more directory than the other options. At one glance, you could spot out the that, its not some original content of the OP. People reference stuffs all the time, stuffs that might not be from the source of the specific information being relayed but then, it could help for a better understanding or appreciation of the content.
Now, for those who don't really care to look or are scared on tapping links, they really wouldn't know it was some reference better understanding or the source link. So, pointing it out looks the more better to me.
Now, for those who don't really care to look or are scared on tapping links, they really wouldn't know it was some reference better understanding or the source link. So, pointing it out looks the more better to me.
Examples 1, 2, and 3 are not plagiarism.
Technically true, at least on this forum. 3rd example is very sketchy though. I can't think of any good reason to do this. Since the person doing this is would be most likely already aware of how plagiarism is treated on this forum, they should just put in a proper link/quote and not run the risk of moderators misinterpreting it. For example, what if the link is dead and moderator doesn't realize it was supposed to be a link to the source of the text and not some random link about the underlined word?
And for a casual observer who doesn't want to click links it's not really obvious that it's a source link for the entire following paragraph (or multiple paragraphs? where does it end?), therefore the user who posted such a link may be incorrectly assumed to be the author of the text by merit senders etc... not entirely ethical I think. So yeah maybe I can think of a (bad) reason to do this - merit whoring.
Put it in quote tags and remove all doubt.
The fact that moderators are extremely lenient in such cases doesn't make it a good or even acceptable practice.
Quote
Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele made yet another bullish Bitcoin (BTC) prediction soon after the International Monetary Fund had urged his government to remove Bitcoin’s status as legal tender.
Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.
The president cited Bitcoin’s scarcity case, emphasizing there are “more than 50 million millionaires” in the world, and there is not enough Bitcoin if each one of them wanted to own at least 1 BTC.
Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.
The president cited Bitcoin’s scarcity case, emphasizing there are “more than 50 million millionaires” in the world, and there is not enough Bitcoin if each one of them wanted to own at least 1 BTC.
this will be quite enough to avoid accusations of plagiarism.
After all, the purpose of quoting is not only not to be accused of plagiarism, but also the norm of copyright. Therefore, in addition to quotation marks, the source and author, if any, should be indicated. And for web publications, a hyperlink to the original message should also be indicated.
If the link to the source is hidden, then this entails deliberate deception, in which the authorship of the quoted text may mistakenly be attributed to the author of the message.
That's exactly what I was saying and that's the case with example #4 in Ratimov's OP. This is not required and is not required by anyone. By placing the text in a quote, all questions about authorship are already swept aside. I will say more, even if I quote like this:
Putting something in quote is enough to show the public that you are not trying to make it look like the content is yours. Hence the quote tags. I still wouldn't do that without placing a source link. You would most certainly be safe from getting banned, but maybe a mod would consider deleting your post. I personally see if as an unneeded gamble. 
I'm sure most discretion would involve applying Occam's razor to the user's intent.
Most of the time, pasting a link is easy enough (and the easiest option). If it seems obvious enough that the user intends to credit something to another, then contextual crediting is no different from sourcing something else.
Doing something in an obfuscated way means you have little intention to share it: that seems contrary to someone wishing to credit others' work.
Most of the time, pasting a link is easy enough (and the easiest option). If it seems obvious enough that the user intends to credit something to another, then contextual crediting is no different from sourcing something else.
Doing something in an obfuscated way means you have little intention to share it: that seems contrary to someone wishing to credit others' work.
All these examples have the same error, since the quoted material should be marked with quotation marks. Thus, if you add the quoted text to your message, it will be clearly visible where the quoted text is and where the author's text is. If the link to the source is hidden, then this entails deliberate deception, in which the authorship of the quoted text may mistakenly be attributed to the author of the message.
As long as the post contains the source link it is not considered as plagiarism which I observed from my experiences here because lot of people were copying article from cryptocurrency related news site and post it here to get some merits and at the end of their post they add the source. But I always prefer to put the copied article inside quote bb code and express my opinion below of that.
Examples 1, 2, and 3 are not plagiarism. If you were to report such things to the moderators, the committers would not be banned for it. Plagiarism is not just copy-pasting someone's text. It's also pretending that the work is yours. In the first three examples, it's obvious that you aren't pretending it's yours because there is a quote, source link, or hyperlink to the original source. We might discuss what style is the most appropriate and which one should be used on the forum, but it's not plagiarism.
I have never come across example #4. Maybe because they are difficult to spot and I didn't see them. Technically, it's not plagiarism because there is a source. However, those who do that, deserve whatever is coming to them because why would you go through the trouble of hiding a link like that when you can just show it normally? Example #4 could be considered plagiarism because the person is pretending that the post is his. You wouldn't be able to know there is an image and source there unless you quoted and checked the code of the post. The only reason I see that someone would do that is to acquire merits making people believe he is the original author, but if someone checks, he can always say that a source was provided but hidden inside the post.
I have never come across example #4. Maybe because they are difficult to spot and I didn't see them. Technically, it's not plagiarism because there is a source. However, those who do that, deserve whatever is coming to them because why would you go through the trouble of hiding a link like that when you can just show it normally? Example #4 could be considered plagiarism because the person is pretending that the post is his. You wouldn't be able to know there is an image and source there unless you quoted and checked the code of the post. The only reason I see that someone would do that is to acquire merits making people believe he is the original author, but if someone checks, he can always say that a source was provided but hidden inside the post.
I guess number 3 is the hardest to decide but yes this is plagiarism. I saw a couple of such posts on the forum, I guess it's a smart way to avoid the ban. There is no clear citation of sources and this type of writing is used in paid posts to create a backlink.
the context in which the quoted text is cited is also important. if it is presented as one's own opinion, then it is definitely for a penalty while if it is clearly indicated as an example or representation of a different opinion, then it could be considered acceptable.
the context in which the quoted text is cited is also important. if it is presented as one's own opinion, then it is definitely for a penalty while if it is clearly indicated as an example or representation of a different opinion, then it could be considered acceptable.
3 is plagiarism....
I spoke with the moderators and they have a different opinion on this matter. This is just your subjective assessment. There are even those on the forum who believe that plagiarism is when a link is at the end of the text, and not at the beginning. In any case, if you find posts like option 3 and try to report plagiarism, you will be ignored.
Imho this 3rd case is pretty close to writing:
I've read in a newspaper: Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele made yet another bullish Bitcoin (BTC) prediction soon after the International Monetary Fund had urged his government to remove Bitcoin’s status as legal tender.
which will not be considered plagiarism.
So it's pretty much debatable and it may pretty much depend on the mod.
---
But 4 is pretty much clear, since there's no visible clue at all about the originating source of the quote. That's a problem. That asks for ban.
Jump to: