Topic: Editing plagiarism, after detection (Read 743 times)

Justice has been served The user is banned. I found a lot of interesting things in his list of posts

I ask the moderators to carefully review my report. The post was removed after being discovered.
I really hope for your justice.

You're right. Recently, I tried to complain to the moderators about topics that were simply copied and had a link to the source but did not have the opinion of the topic author himself. Such topics were removed, but I only complained about topics where there were no answers from other users or there were only two or three answers. From here, we can understand that just copied texts with the source can also be interesting for discussion.
But your second statement, where the user can change their habits, is also true. And so it happened. Now he quotes other people's texts, but besides, he writes something from himself. I am glad that he quickly realized his mistakes. I would like to believe that the same will happen to others who simply copy from the Internet with the source without their comments.

Per current available rule, depends on the content quality, only two possible solutions

• Move it to trash can (if content quality is low)
• No action if content quality is good enough.
  
  • At least it does not break rules but I agree that anyone share content should add his/her own opinion about it.
  • It leads to another issue, how to judge the his/her opinion is acceptable enough or simply write one short shallow and hasty sentence to regularize it in order to avoid trash can

Yeah, well earned, a double case of plagiarism is deliberate, and it's my fault for not looking at it from the appropriate perspective. I don't support a case of double plagiarism; looking at Pablo's activity, it's clear that the forum isn't significant to him, or that he's bored of copying and pasting other people's work in an attempt to find merits, but failing.

Not everyone is this lucky though  

This is a resounding NO!!! Anything in the archive should be kept in the archive, and every action should be based on what proof can be found in the sands of time, rather than anything that was destroyed or tossed into the air a long time ago.

It's punishment enough to make small adjustments to the rules and give the moderators freedom to delete such posts and threads. When they fail to reach their signature quota, they will first complain about it and then look to change their habits if they want to get paid. Since those low-effort posts are mostly made to up the post count, their goal is to get paid and when they don't, you will get the wanted results.   

That's being done on purpose, if they are editing the post after detection, they must be punished as 99.99% time, they post it knowingly.
Citation should be mandatory while posting contents from other authors. It can be a link, can be the name of the author or a book or whatever but a clear mention of author or direct link to the content.

At least, if you don’t exactly know the author of the content, it's the best to quote the text as a quote would simply refer to this has been shared by someone else. That's what the use of quote.

In general, I believe that people posting only the content from a source and having no further opinion of their own, should also be punished, maybe a warning.

I document all my censorship in this topic.

Agreed. If the user corrects his mistake before getting banned, they may actually improve in the future.
If you want to report plagiarism without alerting the user to edit his post: click Report to moderator instead of posting in public.

Admin would still be able to confirm you didn't remove the plagiarism just then. Even better: if you remove accidental plagiarism within 10 minutes after posting, the forum keeps no record of it at all.
Basically, my archive is great for catching typos and ninja edits.

And that reminds me of the case where someone ninja-edited his post to make the user who posted after him look like he copied it. Always be careful who to accuse

An edited and changed plagiarized post that points to the correct source is no longer a plagiarism issue if you ask me. What you explained can happen to anyone. I don't think the timeframe for how long the content was on the forum should be decisive. If the post was edited before someone reported you, I think you wouldn't be banned. Even if you edit the post after the report is sent, the admins might look the other way.

In the example you provided, the admins can't prove (unless they have some tools that I don't know about) how long the post was there without the source. Therefore the original achieve doesn't offer any clarity or additional evidence.   

Funny, I never finished a post and then thought, "Oh I forgot to add the source of the words I wanted to appear were my own." I know I said this a lot lately but why don't people just try coming up with their own thoughts? Seems like some people go through a lot more work for undesired results.


And that's why the best way to ban people for plagiarism is to just report it -- so they don't get the chance to change their post.

However, the Pablo James account was banned. Also, yesterday's case with the plagiarism warning of newcomer DanielBroonze about adding a link to his post was also banned. He was warned several times, but he didn't fix anything. Probably not everyone needs it?
https://ninjastic.space/topic/5359660

As for getting plagiarism out of the archive, and further persecution of the one who committed it, this is madness. And I did not create the topic for this at all. The topic was about human behavior at the time of detection of plagiarism. Trying to deceive anyone, knowing that everything is in the archive, is disgusting.

Once again, I respect Mpamaegbu, he didn’t pretend to be innocent, didn’t begin to destroy his mistakes, knowing that everything is already in the know anyway. It is worthy of a man. Accept everything as it is, and then act according to the situation.
The act of today's blocked Pablo James is very cowardly. This once again shows who is in front of us. All the more insulting to add a link to the worldwide network, mistaking everyone for idiots. After all, so, everyone understands that all information exists in Google.

Of course they can modify the archived posts at any time. I'm quite sure LoyceV has removed or edited some doxing attempts once or twice. But they're staking their reputation on it and we can trust that they wouldn't do it for malicious purposes about as much as we trust them not to scam or otherwise deceive in general.

(the following is not necessarily in response to you but on the topic of the thread in general)

I do trust both TryNinja and LoyceV but I would still argue that moderators should not use those archives to ban users, particularly if the ban reason itself no longer exists in this forum (the post has been edited by the author).

Imagine this scenario:

1) I make a copy-pasta post, forget to add a link, edit the post 10 seconds later and add the link. LoyceV's archive has my original without the link.
2) I edit the post a year later for an unrelated reason. Some shithead finds the archive and reports it for plagiarism. My last edit date makes it look like I made the edit recently and the plagiarism existed for a year. Archives don't really capture every edit to show what actually happened.

Do we really want to go that far into the weeds? For what purpose? To catch one or two more plagiarists? There is always many others we can find with far less effort. And if we ever get to the point where the few sleazeballs who edited their posts after being reported are the only shitposters on this forum, I think we'll be fine.

There are no rules stating that you must contribute to whatever you copy from the Internet; sometimes the topic suffices; however, in this case, the op is a super lazy poster who did not claim the work as his own, and on that note, I do not believe he deserves parmaban for making silly mistakes. As I previously stated, the forum needs to establish a standard on plagiarism.

this is plagiarism for sure, let's look at the wide picture.
He finds some text on Google  and post it here. without any discussion on his part and a possible explanation as to why he quoted it.
So, what is next? He will create 20 new topics per week, copy/paste something over the internet, put "Source: Goggle" and voila, he fulfils signature requirements. he did not even participate in the further discussion on the topic, he may not even understand what he wrote. certainly this was written just for the signature campaign or hunting for merit. (Opening useful topic in Beginners and Help section, easy can bring some merits)
do we really need such posters here?

This is wrong and could be potentially misleading for other members. The forum does not have any clear cut rule for plagiarism besides;
There is no specifications on what type of ban one would get for variants of plagiarism, rather it is handled case to case, with one outcome not influencing another.

Ratimov once said something about that (editing and citing an accused post), which somehow put editing for citation on the right and I understood why. Trying to right your wrongs isn't such a bad thing, is it. Here was my response to that;

Here was the pointy finger manifestation. So, it doesn't matter where you turn, its about who is raising the alarm.

Plagiarism is a no just course for anyone and I understand why the forum fights it so much. Bitcointalk is a forum that treasures originality and the crypto community hnags on trusts between parties. If you aren't virtuous enough to credit the sources of a content for which you got a valuable information, how then can you be a trust worthy person. I'm just saying!

I checked up the meaning of plagiarism lately in the Merriam Websters dictionary and it made perfect sense. The meaning was more incriminating than the copy and paste without citation portrays. I'll paste it here. Merriam Websters dictionary definition of plagiarism/plagiarizing; Transitive verb: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source.
As an intransitive verb: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

Note the words: "steal" and "theft". Sometimes, we don't realize this is what we do each time we plagiarize. Well, some plagiarism could be unintention and we ought to own our mistakes. After all, we are here to learn and learn we would still. Let's deal honorably and maintain the decorum of bitcointalk. We good!

Before answering this question, I want to tell you about the types of plagiarism.

1.Copy and paste the original text directly-------Ban account directly

2.Part of a paragraph or a paragraph, directly paste and copy-----Ban account directly

3.By extracting multiple articles, piece together into one article, without indicating the source-------Ban account directly

4.Quote the opinions of others and change the original article into your own language---------Mute for 7 days

5.Citing the article, but the source of the article is not marked or the source is ambiguous------Mute for 7 days

6.Abuse of citations, fewer original articles------Mute for 7 days

7.Large-length article, quoted in one sentence------Not plagiarism

8.I copied myself without citation------Not plagiarism

Plagiarism is shameful, but it is not a death sentence. You need to see whether the plagiarism is harmful to others (bounty program market, very chaotic)

It only happens if the author composes a huge topic with dozen of resource links. I think, it is acceptable if the author forget one link in dozen of links for that topic. I guess moderators will be keen on a softer solution, ignore plagiarism in such case and not use a ban hammer. At least, the author shows clear signals that he/she does not intend to claim the authorship of those contents.

However, cases in OP (and in this discussion) is different. Copy & paste from only one source, so it is absolutely unacceptable if the author says I forget a link of the content.

I am not sure what you don't agree with. It seems that you and I are talking about different things, hence the confusion. I wasn't taking about adding any kind of link. I mentioned adding the correct link in my previous post, not "Google" or "Internet" as the source. If I use your post as a reference for something I am writing, I am supposed to post your link as my source. That's it. Is that the part you don't agree with? 

Of course it's not a problem. I never suggested it should be. All I was saying is that you need to provide a source that you personally used, and that's it. I think what LoyceV was suggesting is that you make a more detailed research into the original source of the information. Where it all came from. The source of the source until you find the first. I think doing that is not necessary. 

I don't think they should. You said it yourself. You can edit the quote to say whatever you want in an attempt to frame someone. LoyceV's and TryNinja's bots are reliable source unless they have a way to edit the post content. I have never heard any complaints that might be the case though. 

This reference is incorrect because it leads nowhere, but the posts are not plagiarized. I believe the forum needs to understand the difference between citation and reference; they are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing; in academic publications, both are required, but I do not believe they are required on the forum; if you want to cite a few contents from the internet, you should simply put them in a quote; a link is not required; a reference source is only required when you copy/paste a full article


Tbh. After looking through their posts and how long they've been on the forum, I've PMed a few members in the past to notify them of their mistake. I believe that a member with 1000 good posts and 1 bad post doesn't deserve to be kicked off the forum, and that such a member should be given a chance to correct their mistakes rather than being parmam ban, a newbie who plagiarized in his first posts and a member who plagiarized after a few good ones should not be treated equally If a suspect destroys evidence at a crime scene before an investigation, the case is meaningless.