Topic: Editing plagiarism, after detection - page 2. (Read 743 times)

Op, I asked a direct question to you in one plagiarism thread, I am seeing  the answers here.
IMO, according to the custom of the forum, plagiarism should be treated not only based on the intent of the plagarist.
We can have;
1. Plagiarism punishment as a result of denying the forum further opportunity to study the topic: This type can be seen as expressed by OP,  "Source: google". With such type of citation, it is obvious that the plagarist intention is not to take credit, as such can be exonerated or punished slightly for depriving the forum the opportunity to read further.

2. According to @Suchmoon, if a plagarist is informed through Pm to correct his plagiarism mistake, it might take years the crime was committed. There is possibility that he must have forgotten where he copied from. It will then be difficult to site. If the plagarist comes up with a horrific citation as "Source: google", I think he should be considered being remorseful rather than playing smart.

3. Sometimes, great readers might have moduled their brain from different sources. Their post can be original but looks spinned, or guilty of the "five consecutive words" rule. In this case, I think the user does not deserve a ban. But any user that lifts something more or equivalent to one paragraph without citing it should be responsible for whatever outcome he sees. It is very rare to hover the mouse over a very long text, copy same and paste in the forum without remembering the forum strictness on plagiarism. In this case the users past record could be the only deciding factor to moderators.

No. There is no "official" archive of the forum and in any case, if someone fucks up but fixes it later you can no longer claim that their intent was to plagiarize.


Don't post the findings publicly then. Report to mods.


So what? They fixed it, it's no longer plagiarism.


No. Just no.

---

The goal should be reducing shitpostery, not banning as many users as possible. Report plagiarism to moderators but stop sweating about users editing their posts. The 1% who care enough to do that might turn out to be valuable users or they'll get caught later.

It's especially unacceptable if the source is Goggle.  I get that people forget to cite their source sometimes, but you can only forget once or twice over a long period of time before it becomes blatant plagiarism.  As for being reminded to put in a citation after the post was made, that's a tricky one.  I don't really have a problem with it, and it might be more constructive and a positive thing overall than just letting the member get banned--but that's assuming the member learns his lesson from that warning.

Every plagiarism will be treated case by case as per the admin statement so the moderators may decide whether the user can be banned or not depends on the intention behind that post and who knows the post can be completely intention or unintentionally.

But when someone edit their Post after getting caught then they may deserve ban for sure.

This is a really interesting aspect of this discussion cause there is actually a possibility that a user can make a post that contains borrowed content but actually forgot to add the link immediately, or actually wanted to make the post first and then arrange the link(s) for a few minutes and then add them subsequently, but within that time another user could immediately discover that such post contains information that does not originally belong to the OP and archive such post as having plagiarised content.

I believe in such situations, the moderators would basically just handle the issue logically, since there is no rule on the amount of time for one to edit a message and add necessary links, they will just apply common wisdom in such a scenario, if the user actually edited the post within a day or two when no open reports have actually been made against the user, then we can assume it was all just a mistake and that the user forgot to add the link to the source, then again, if the user adds a link after an open report has already been made against the user and he claims to have actually forgotten to add the source, there is no way to know if such person is telling the truth, and it could be referred to as the user being malicious or trying to cheat, thus the moderators I think would actually decide the case on things such as: the reputation of the user, if that is actually the only case of plagiarism found in the users profile, is such a user one who makes shitposts with zero quality just to earn some pocket money, what contributions does such user have to the community, etc, I believe after a round up of all these, the moderators can easily decide if the user deserves a ban or not.

I remember one such case from a year or two ago on this forum.
It was a member from the Croatian part of the forum, who posted something in the English part of the forum, copy/ paste from another page, but didn't add a link because she had obviously not read the forum rules and didn't understand how important it's to add a source.
I and a few other local members alerted her to this, and within an hour or two she added a source link to her post.
I think she even got a report of plagiarism because of that post but as far as I know she didn’t get permaban.
As far as I know, after that she was very careful and it never happened to her again to make a mistake and publish a post without a source link.
So, a question for all of you: Do we really need to be consistent and punish every beginner mistake of a newbie (plagiarism) with permaban or should we simply warn of the mistake and give that member a new chance?
As someone has already mentioned, sometimes it seems that plagiarism is a bigger mistake on this forum than financial fraud.

Do quotes of plagiarized content count?

Assume someone posted something stolen from the Internet and later deleted it or edited it with a link. Another user quoted that post before changes were made. Can it be used as evidence of plagiarism? It is true that quotes can be freely modified by the person quoting the post, but when combined with the archived unedited version, it gives even more evidence of plagiarism.

What if a user was caught immediately after he posted his message? What if he forgot to add a link and was found instantly by vigilant seekers? What amount of time can be considered normal to edit a message? Who are to decide this?

I do not agree. In this case, you can add any link that has nothing to do with the text at all. And this once again exposes the user to a ban. It's just that everything is elementary, if someone copies from somewhere, it shouldn't be a problem for him to copy and paste the source into his text, especially since it is nearby

Edit: I'll clarify, an example with the addition of Google as a source of information can also be evidence, in the opinion of the person who added the source. But I'm not talking about scouring the internet for the original. Sometimes this is simply not possible.


This is where I saw the problem. Seeing the time when the plagiarism complaint appeared, and the further editing time, is not a problem for moderators.
Therefore, I conclude that it is considered acceptable for the administration to add sources.
And also, by sending several reports directly to the moderators, you don't have to wait for the user's ban at all, provided that the text has been well edited and changed. Everything that I send to the moderators in the plagiarism topic is processed in the best possible way.

I am looking at LoyceV quote from your OP. He seems to suggest that people should follow the links to get to the original source where the content came from. Personally, I don't think that's necessary. If I used this thread of yours as a source for something I am writing, I need to give credit to you by mentioning your thread as the source of some of the info I got. I shouldn't have to research what you used. It's your task to point to your sources if you used some to write a particular thread.

Actually some forum users is taking the forum for granted since the measure of plagiarism actions is not seem to be effective any longer, now people is using another means to violates the rules, editing post after you have be caught for plagiarism does not grant you not to face the implications or stipulates that you did not plagiarised article, except moderators want to consider the factor they have added source of the author after claiming authorship, from my perspective anyone that's caught for plagiarism and at the period of been caught the user began to edit and add source, let the user face the penalty of plagiarism, it's absolutely wrong and  if an adequate measure is not taken it will create a means to plagarise and edit when caught and definitely it will become norms of the forum.

Hey lovesmayfamilis. I don't know if I'm not explaining myself well or you're misunderstanding me but this is the second time in 24 hours that you've responded to me with something that has nothing to do with what I meant.

Maybe I've gone too far in general on the plagiarism issue, but I don't know why you say I deliberately missed that post.

No, in this case, I would understand it is right for the moderators to ban him. It seems a clear case of deliberate plagiarism, in this case twice, and of trying to hide the evidence quickly when caught.

At best, the user is not claiming the content as theirs, there are definitely better ways to go about it, but in the spirit of fairness; putting a source, regardless how sketchy or untidy would get one off the hook, as long as it is done before plagiarism is discovered.

No it doesn't. If it did no one would ever be banned for plagiarism, they simply connect to a notifier like TryNinja's telegram bot and check for quotes and mentions for accusation of plagiarism, then quickly add a source link before mods take action.
Adding a source after you make a post, but before you're caught out shows you did not intend to break the rules, somewhat, but after it's discovered, you're just trying to cover your tracks.

OK. Do you think this is his only plagiarism? In this case, I can add besides the second one, which you deliberately did not notice in the first post, another, which he carefully tried to hide. Did it all happen by chance? Yeah.
Then the first Pokapoka124 can calmly continue its publications, not paying attention to the fact that one day it will be blocked again.

[ archive ]



On the left is the original source, on the right is a post that was carefully copied in an attempt to change some points.


https://copyleaks.com/dashboard/v1/businesses/report/pk4j27n10sxjprb6/preview?key=om3j50si42h8yebd&suspectId=a7c5383acc&viewMode=one-to-one&contentMode=html&sourcePage=1&suspectPage=1

original source:
https://www.nairaland.com/6692908/uchenna-christian-arrested-india-duping
https://ambrosymediainfo.com/a-reflection-on-the-good-old-days-in-nigeria-what-has-really-gone-wrong/

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57917614

And that should be good enough for not getting banned. I want to be able to post something I read somewhere even if I can't find the link right now. Of course when you post a large amount of text that seems to be copy-pasted, and not a paraphrased sentence, you probably should have a proper link, but it still should not lead to a ban. Is it a low value post that should be deleted - perhaps, depending on circumstances.

Same with editing posts. Moderators should not ban for something that no longer exists. Honestly I'm not a huge fan of posting plagiarism findings publicly (just report to mods) however there are circumstances where I could clearly see there was no intent to plagiarise but rather a mangled quote, or a copy of a well-known text that moderators may interpret as an attempt to claim as your own, so I would warn the poster that they should edit it to clarify the source. Let's face it, real plagiarists will get caught eventually anyway. Banning slightly careless users is not necessary.

Well, maybe the moderators are taking a more lenient approach, after the Mpamaegbu case. To me what LoyceV said the other day comes to mind: we are in a forum that does not ban you for stealing money but for copying two lines. Maybe a more lenient approach would not be bad, especially in cases of someone who only plagiarized once or twice in the past, since we are writing forum posts, not PhDs.

The case you comment on seems to me a bit ridiculous, and that he has put google as a source, very poor. I guess he was in a rush after being discovered.


I don't think so. As tradinghunt says:


But



Well, I tell you, I don't know if the moderators act more leniently now, but this is a forum, not a Doctoral Thesis tribunal. I wouldn't mind a slightly more lenient approach to cases of plagiarism (especially minor ones, not from someone who has copy-pasted dozens of posts), although what I think counts for little.

It is intentionally response to plagiarism accusation that is bad, obviously.

Initially, if a poster takes content from somewhere else, it should be a link. Even it is taken from Google, it should have a link because when you use Google search engine, the search results will give a kind of abstract of found contents. If you want to read a full text, you must click on it and Google will direct you to a specific page at which you surely can have a link.

For this case, leaving a source as Google is very lazy and unacceptable (in my opinion) ^{at least, it shows that poster does not claim the ownership of that content}.

One exception (in my opinion) is when you recall that you read a content from somewhere else, from someone but you can not find a link again. For that case, you can leave something like "I recalled this statement is from A" and if possible - "Unfortunately, I can not find the source link for now".

Content ^{I recalled this statement is from A Unfortunately, I can not find the source link for now"}

I have a question for the community.
Yesterday I discovered plagiarism, which was made on purpose, there is no direct copy-paste, but there was deliberate copying and some modification of the text. That is, the person understood his actions, and it is difficult to call this act accidental if we recall the story with Mpamaegbu.

Then he saw that there was a complaint of plagiarism against him, after which he cowardly adds an alleged link to the source, but this source is not correct.

I don't remember exactly what LoyceV said, but recently he advised that if you add sources, then they must be real.
edit:
There and then, this user just stupidly referred to Google.

The moderators did not ban it.

Question: if we copy anything from the Internet, and then just write that everything is taken from Google, is that correct?
And the second question: Everything on the forum is archived, why the user remains unpunished in case of obvious plagiarism and further editing? I mean after it became known to the public. Does it change something? After all, everyone can see perfectly well that this is the act of an ostrich, which hides its head in the sand, but its mistakes remain in full view of everyone.



https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5697/56977531.html

EDIT: case 2

In this case, until he had time to write that he gets all the information from Google, I ask the moderators to consider another of his posts. Please note, there is no link. The post is also copied in excerpts. But the plagiarism search engine shows the result of copying.

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5685/56858097.html



https://www.bbc.com/news/56858980
morokbarok.ru/news/56858980
https://princetoncouncil.org/india-covid-crisis-did-election-rallies-help-spread-virus/