Topic: Merit Source - Plagiarist - page 5. (Read 5362 times)

Good catch, and a very important point.  I am not sure how I missed that.

• If you republish a text written by another person,^* it is critical to put the author’s byline up top, in a prominent position!
• Ratimov flat-out lied about the authorship of the post.
  
  Quote from: nullius on December 08, 2020, 01:00:31 AM
  Quote from: ?? on ??

  In this article I would like to touch upon such a theme as online privacy. As we know, now is the period of a pandemic, and it is at this time that rights and freedoms are being infringed, including on the Internet.  [—text fully copied from a Google translation of an article written by Andrew Askamov—]

Now, who will give me credit for my being the first to mention on this thread the most important part, the author’s name, which everybody else has ignored?  Hah.

* Assuming arguendo that this is allowed by forum rules as an OP.  I don’t think it is, generally; though there are some nuances in the rules here, IIUC.


That, too.  In addition to hiding the actual source.

When you wrote In this article I would like to touch upon such a theme that sounds like you wrote that article.That sentence should be started with In this article  Andrew Asmakov touched  upon such a theme...



Only reason why he inserted 7 sources is to appear like he invested hard work while compiling many different articles and texts.In reality all he did is google translated 1 article and then shared few more sources that were inside that article to look better.

My jaw just dropped:  Is this person a DT1 and a merit source!?  —Ratimov, have you no shame?

Disgusting.

Plagiarism has always been unacceptable here.  theymos has generally expressed that he despises plagiarism, ever since the days when Satoshi was still here:


This latter post confuses plagiarism with copyright, which is one of my pet peeves; but at least theymos’ heart was in the right place there.

---

Nonsense.  On the face of your English-language post, it would require magical psychic powers to discern that you had posted a Google translation of Russian-language link #3 of 7 in your so-called “sources” list.

Your “references” to “sources” were only a cover-up to hide the source and dishonestly deny credit to the author.  You had only one source, which you totally ripped off and misrepresented as if it were your own original work.  ‘Kidnapped’, per the Latin etymology of the word “plagiarism”.

I observe that you did not even mention the name of the actual author.  The author’s name is Andrew Asmakov.  I am thus far the only one to have identified the author by name.  The author of the article—the one who deserves the credit for it!


It is a gross violation of forum rules.  One of the two worst plagiarisms that I have yet seen here, as I said.


Your despicable response is the very worst part of this.

You act with full intentions.  You are remorseless.  You blame anybody who accuses you.

What a contrast to this (for much less extensive bad posts that had occurred five years before, had never been repeated, and which I actually believe to have been unintentional):

Some opinion:

• It is not an academic forum.
• I read in the past that the forum is the only one (not include academic forum) has a rule on plagiarism. Not sure about the correctness of this info. If yes, at least the forum is the first forum has such rule (bitcoingarden has a rule for plagiarism after community made proposal but the rule is not strict as in this forum)
• The forum has its rule on plagiarism but it does not have a rule on Verbatim plagiarism. So why not skip the Verbatim plagiarism?
• The willingness to share something is good but don't abuse it. I don't say you are abusing it either. Honestly, you are one of very good members on the forum. Topics you share are selective and have high quality. I admire you because of this. It means you are knowledgeable and have good selective process. I did not read most of them but say thanks by the way.
• If you don't earn merit (in fact you earned a lot), no one cares about it. It means something.
• If the style is not accepted, the forum (list of unofficial rules) needs to be updated and violations after that day will be judged and bans will be applied. For now, skip it and move on
• If the community need a rule for Verbatim plagiarism, raise a proposal, and admin will make his approval decision

I am not a fan of copy, paste, spin and mix original paragraphs and topic creator's opinion, honestly.

For the accusation on text spinning, translation, etc, I don't want to spend time to look at the complicated investigation.  

As I myself observed further up the thread, the problem with the merits is not with the senders—to the contrary!  I myself almost sent merit to this post.  I would have felt cheated if I had.  It is one of the reasons why I am focused on this topic—one of many good reasons.

---

Why is this post not showing up?  It seems still to be available; and I have not received any notification of a deleted post.  But it does not show on the thread.  Is there now an actual shadow-ban function on this forum?

I believe that this succinctly illustrates the problem with Ratimov’s copy-paste jobs, which I had deliberately mimicked with a copied-and-pasted post of my own:

Explanations are now added in red for the dullards here:

I too have no problem.

Just to clear again,
Guys I am not accusing any of you because you sent merit. I am trying to find out that when you sent the merits you did not know that those contents were not @Ratimov's own.

If I see sources underneath a post, quite often that's enough for me to skip meriting it as I don't have unlimited merits and prefer wholly original thought.

I don't have a problem with those who do merit such posts. If they find the information valuable and wouldn't have seen it if Ratimov hadn't posted it, that's all that really matters.

We're not a literary forum, we're a forum about bitcoin.

No, I am not.
I am trying to make a point here that those who sent merit to that topic, never thought that was not crafted in such a way so that it looks like OP's own contents.

Also have a look on the new discovery about the same contents: Use of article spinner and plagiarism

That wasn’t my definition of plagiarism, you self-made nutcase.  I copied and pasted that definition of plagiarism from Yale.EDU.  Wasn’t it obvious?  


So, I guess that you “don’t give a shit” what Yale University tells its faculty and students about plagiarism.  That is acceptable:  There is no reason for anyone to give a shit about your opinion.  (Drop the presumptuous “we”.  It is obviously not a royal “we”, for there is nothing royal about you; and it cannot be an editorial “we”, for you are an awful writer.)

---

Ah, so you finally noticed my nym.  You know how when somebody takes the username, “BitcoinBillionaire”, “VIP Boss”, or “Supergenius”, it is usually the opposite of the truth?  ;-)

---

mdayonliner, even if you didn’t want to read the whole 2-page thread, a skim would have informed you that I already spent several hours doing a a full side-by-side collation of the English.  Good work on the parts that you caught, but there was much more—actually, the whole thing except for the first two sentences which were based on the Asmakov article, but apparently expressed in Ratimov’s words (insofar as I can tell).

---

^^^ This.  Sums it up.

Archived version of the accused topic: https://archive.vn/wip/FHTqZ

---

I did not go for the entire topic of this thread but just wanted to see what the case is by comparing with google translation. My findings are below for only with the beginning part


From the OP: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-source-plagiarist-5297144


From accused topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5296174

Let's do some sampling...

---

---

---

The original source is of course

---

---

Let's say it's not plagiarism but is this something that the topic author (@Ratimov) can claim that is his own too?
No he can not.

But if we start reading the topic will anyone question at the first glance that the above samplings are not @Ratimov's own contents?
No. The way it has presented, no one will have any doubt that it's not @Ratimov's own contents unless we would see this topic from the OP

Question to those merit senders (DdmrDdmr (2), OgNasty (1), ETFbitcoin (1), mk4 (1), 20kevin20 (1), GazetaBitcoin (1)),

Did it look like the introduction (2 paragraphs) was entirely the author's (@Ratimov) own words when you sent the merits?
I am sure the answer will come Yes

Does it look like that it's just a lazy translation with some tweaks and you are feeling annoyed now?
The possible answer, Yes.

---

@Ratimov, you wanted to craft it in such a way that you wanted the credit of the article to be your own. This is not right either if this is not plagiarism.
If I would sent you merit then I would regret it after discovering this tactics.

The game of round one is over.
Answered all problems.
Not included in the plagiarism category.


Now a second battle is at stake, I spend 2-4 hours reading, what do I see here the accusations against Ratimov.
In my assessment based on the rules made and said by the owner of the Forum BitCointalk.

Ratimov = Not classified as plagiarism.

If, as Ratimov wrote breaking the rules here, PM themmos, delete all the rules written above.

Read this again. It says that you dont need more then few sentences but he copies whole articles.How about that?

He is doing that all the time.Google translating  russian articles from forklog website
6 Fundamental Reasons Why Bitcoin is Growing
Majority of text google translated from  https://forklog.com/pochemu-rastet-bitkoin-fundamentalnye-prichiny-mneniya-prognozy/

Lets all start google translating articles from other languages and opening new topics.

nutildah must be high on LSD right now, at this particular moment.  And people on this forum generally have no idea what plagiarism is:  They call insubstantive copy-pastes of uncreative material “plagiarism” (e.g., RegulusHR), but deny that extreme, definitional plagiarism is plagiarism.

What Is Plagiarism?

Plagiarism is usually defined as a discrete offense, a specific failure to give credit to a particular source. But it actually raises a much more fundamental question for writers: “Where is my voice in this project?” Seen in this light, the strategies that help you avoid plagiarism can also be strategies that help you gain power as a writer. Once your guiding question about your relationship to sources is “Where is my voice?” you are well on your way to using sources in an effective and legitimate way.

Plagiarism is the use of another’s work, words, or ideas without attribution. The word “plagiarism” comes from the Latin word for “kidnapper” and is considered a form of theft, a breach of honesty in the community. Plagiarizers suffer serious consequences.

But beyond the risk of penalties, there are urgent moral and intellectual reasons to avoid plagiarism. When you write, you’re joining an ongoing conversation. When you plagiarize, you join that conversation on false grounds, representing yourself as someone you are not. What is more, the act of stealing another’s words or ideas erases your voice.

You must always make clear in your written work where you have borrowed from others.

---

---

sources:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
- https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2020/12/01/a-heartfelt-plagiarism/
- https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/writing/using-sources/understanding-and-avoiding-plagiarism/what-plagiarism
- https://www.pornhub.com/ [NSFW]
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.26140103
- https://archive.org/details/nietzschehislilu00ludouoft
- https://web.archive.org/web/20190926055757/http://www.jir.com/

It is due to the fact that bitcointalk forum is not a literature forum where writers are competing with each other in eloquence and writing, where plagiarism is strictly prohibited. However, unlike on this forum, on literature forums, there are specific and clear rules regarding what plagiarism is (the notion of plagiarism is strictly defined) and what can be considered plagiarism (if all the rules are not strictly followed by a writer, it is plagiarism).

Let us take a look at the rules regarding plagiarism, which I found on some literature forum.


Even if Ratimov were a writer and posted his articles on the said literature forum, he would barely be considered a plagiarist because he followed at least 2 out of 3 rules. Moreover, given that the first rule is the same as that on bitcointalk forum and Ratimov strictly followed it, he cannot be considered plagiarist on this forum whatsoever.

Not plagiarism. He referenced the sources at the end of the post (as was noticed in post #2 of this thread, yet here we are on page 2).

Is there an example of someone who has been banned for plagiarism after including sources in their post? If you can find that, that would be a convincing argument that a new standard needs to be developed. However, it would appear that we are good with the standards we have now.

As far as the whole CM campaign angle is concerned, Ratimov works harder than most people here and I can't think of many more deserving of a spot in the campaign.

I agree with nullius this time this is text spinning and also he do that just to get more merits here.

Imagine that? He do it for so many times, many users has been on  bad shape for doing that and if Ratimov can escape this then there's a problem with the system here.

Thumbs up on this.


Stealing is an integral part of a rat. First I was thinking of him as of CPM  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5276004 but perhaps CPR would be more appropriate for this shitposter. You know,  his  Ratimov handle is not for nothing.

Actually if we will go down on this matter if we will going to write a book or any research studies then there are rulings for this on how to quote and how to acknowledge the author or the real article and definitely it is not about copying and pasting. But there is no ruling here that this type of publishing is considered as plagiarism. This is not considered plagiarism in this forum as long as the source has been acknowledge completely different when you write research studies and or articles.

Maybe the quick solution for this is besides adding the sources of the article the OP should also take not that majority of the post is "translated in English" from a particular article. I double checked the article in forklog and I can say majority of the post content also the pictures use are from that article. So maybe to avoid future debate regarding with post taken from another article you should make it clear that it is a translation from one article, with that people who think it is plagiarism will just leave you alone.