Topic: Merit Source - Plagiarist - page 6. (Read 5242 times)

Lauda was never a merit source.  You see, CH, this is a large part of your problem:  You often state factually untruthful misinformation.  It is doubly a shame, because you sometimes have some good points—and you undermine them by being, shall we say, “careless with the facts”.  Truthfulness is of the utmost importance to me; that is why I so admired Lauda, and always will.

Now, my post was about Ratimov.  The point of the Lauda contrast that I made halfway through my post was about Ratimov.  Ratimov has chosen to deal with this accusation by shooting the messenger, and denying that plagiarism is plagiarism.  About Ratimov:


Why don’t you think that this is at least as bad as what many others have been punished for, if not much worse in substance?

A casual copy-and-paste is bad enough.  OP’s highlighting make it easy to see, this is an instance of systematically assembling text piecewise from others’ words.  And Ratimov has essentially admitted that he copied the text from someone else.

The post is very recent, earned 7 merits, and no doubt increased Ratimov’s reputation with some of the more intelligent users of the forum.  I myself happened across that post recently, and intended to merit it and reply.  (If I want to reply to something, I usually wait until I reply to send merit.)  I am shocked to see that it actually is not his.


No, you can get thousands of merits with much more knowledge and effort than Ratimov evidently has.

I am not very familiar with Ratimov’s post history.  “...not only with this article”?  Have evidence?

---

I may perhaps be a little bit less adamant—just a little bit—

• —if there were any ambiguity whatsoever in the apparent authorship of the body text of the post.  I viewed the post itself, not only OP’s quote.  I sincerely tried to guess how a reader could discern that the text of the post actually quotes is spun from others’ words.  No way.  It is impossible to view the “source” links at the bottom as a mark of authorship:  Any reasonable person would see them purely as footnotes referring to sources of information, not as authorship credits.  Indeed, although I did not fully check the whole post, he seems to mix informational references with “sources” as authors.
• —if Ratimov did not deny in principle that it is plagiarism to post something written by someone else, fully in the manner as if he is the author.
• —if Ratimov had not chosen to reply with an ad hominem attack against an accusation brought with evidence—
  
  
  Quote from: ?? on ??
  It's okay, just another idiot-troll who, not understanding the situation, runs screaming in the meta, hoping to make some kind of sensation.
  
  —and by ridiculing the bringing of evidence (!).
  
  
  Quote from: ?? on ??
  What a pity that he spent so much time decorating the text, but did not find the time to read my topics more carefully.  
  
  These knee-jerk reactions must stop!  Posts by anonymous parties, alt accounts, and “Newbies” (who may sometimes simply be longtime lurkers) should be judged by whether they are good are bad.  Most are bad—but then, many posts by “Legendary” accounts are also bad.
  
  I have always acted according to this principle.  In my prior experience, I have been accused of scamming by an anonymous alt account who apologized to me after, instead of attacking him as an “alt sockpuppet troll”, I acknowledged that his evidence against someone associated with me was correct, and I coöperated fully in the investigation of that scammer.  I am actually quite thankful to whoever was behind that account:  The investigation that he started saved me from getting sucked deeper into a scam by someone who had fooled me.  If I had started off by attacking him ad hominem on the basis of his using an obvious alt account, then my reputation would have been fried after theymos showed up with IP evidence that it was a known scammer—and I would have deserved it.  It was only my own sincerity and avoidance of knee-jerk reactions that saved me from saying, “go away n00btroll!” to the investigator who blew the lid off one of the most infamous scams of the past few years on this forum.

I am curious to see what lovesmayfamilis has to say about this.  (Among other things in the Russian forum.)


As for me, don’t worry—nobody will “pick me apart”.  ;-)  I will reply to you in the other thread another time; I am trying to catch up on some other things now.

This is plagiarism.  Extreme plagiarism:  It is a more sophisticated form of “text-spinning”.

Some of those who think that it is not plagiarism may be fooled by the language barrier.  I suggest taking a closer look at how the referenced English post is stitched together from others’ words.

Assembling an essay from (translated) copies of others’ words, in the manner as if they are your own words, and then placing links to “sources” at the bottom, makes it appear as if you referred to the “sources” as the sources of information for text that you wrote yourself.  —Which is plagiarism.  In substance.  By definition.

Rikafip’s initial remark is correct as to the substantial essence of the matter.  Ratimov’s deflection that this is not academia is a misdirection.


How many words does Ratimov actually write by himself on this forum?  


Besides stealing credit for authorship, this also devalues the effort of those who produce original work.

I say this based on personal experience with the time and effort required to produce a post of length, scope, and quality comparable to the referenced post which claims to be “by” Ratimov, but instead is slapped together from pieces of others’ work.

---

For the record:  For over two weeks, I have been planning an action related to the Russian forum which idiots may now mistake as being incited by this.  It is the reason for several of the exclusions that I made 2020-11-21, which barely missed Loyce’s 2020-11-21 scrape.  It has been delayed by distractions from the forum’s most highly trusted trolls, and by IRL personal tasks.

I didn’t know that Ratimov was stitching together posts from words written by others.  I did know that plagiarism and other wrongdoing are unaccountably acceptable behaviour in the judgment of Russian DTs.

---

I dislike the growing trend of plagiarism accusations being used as a political weapon on this forum.  I further dislike the trend of brushing off valid accusations with ad hominem diversionary responses to alt accounts.

Emphasis is in the original:


For example, when Lauda was correctly accused in May, neither Lauda nor I made the idiotic ad hominem “n00btroll, go away” brush-off.  Although I infer that person behind that particular account probably had a malicious anti-Lauda motive for expending the effort to dig up those six-year-old posts (!), the use of an alt account was unnecessary in that case:  I know from private discussion that Lauda would not have retaliated for a correct accusation made on the basis of sound evidence.  Furthermore, both Lauda and I merited a different Newbie account’s thoughtfully presented inculpatory analysis of her posts.  The argument thereby stated was cogent, professionally presented, and apparently not malicious despite its harshness towards Lauda; I thought that it was meritorious.

Compare Ratimov’s response here:  Shoot the messenger.


I don’t care who OP is, or what his motive is, if he brings a valid accusation backed by evidence.

Please address the substance of the matter.

You're quoting the "plagiarism and cultural differences" thread and I'd kindly suggest to read the thread all the way to the end. The fact that the OP has been merited, doesn't mean it's correct. No intent, no offence. The cultural aspect is completely irrelevant. edit: so is the quote/bracket remark, but at least you'll avoid any discussion when you use sources-quotes-brackets.


^As usual, suchmoon summarizes the whole thing perfectly. I'd however would like to add that the application is imho completely just and correct.

There's simply so many plagiarism claims which are completely unjustified, that it seems as if the mods are lenient. They're not lenient, they're right. (or, in some cases, it's impossible to prove)


I'm not quite sure why this is so difficult to understand for some, and I'm really amazed about how this has been repeated over and over, yet some people refuse to understand (or accept) this very simple rule.

Not really, he's been under attack for a while by korner and other shitheads. Been doxed too. Way before Chipmixer and I think even before he became a merit source.

I just wonder why this type of attacks begun after the user joined the ChipMixer campaign? And he has been here for a while. Just a strange coincidence, isn't it?
BTW, every case is considered by the mods individually and if the person is not a regular shitposter but has dedicated a lot of time and effort to make this place better ,like Ratimov is doing,those cases are going to thymos and often he evaluate the punishmen if there should be any at all.
If we do not hear from theymos, and that's what is going to happen here, because no real plagiarism happen, this is just an obvious personal attack more like shooting in the dark.

I am not a fan of these types of threads, especially when so much of the content is from the sources/references, but this is not plagiarism.

I looked through the threads you posted and found an interesting answer from Rikafip, although it is strange that Rikafip's current answer regarding Ratimov is much softer. Moreover, Ratimov did not answer on the merits, he does his best to avoid this discussion.

You don't have to try, Pharmacist doesn't reply twice in the same thread.


I am quite sure that nothing will change, everyone present, except for suchmoon, stuck their tongues in their ass, or generally avoid this topic, so as not to make an enemy in the person of Ratimov. Ou ils publient des commentaires neutres avec des affirmations selon lesquelles j'ai publié quelque chose de mal et que mes mots diffèrent de ceux d'origine.

Marcel, Marie.

Sources are always given at the end. That's not a formality but its a correct way of posting any thing which is taken from any other source.
I think you are just wasting your time here and if you had the confidence in yourself, you would have dare to post with your original account.

For example, in academic world, if you verbatim copy something without making clear distinction that's not your own words (and you do that by putting those sentences in quotation marks) it will be seen as plagiarism, even if you provide reference link at the end. So yeah, in those circles this would count as plagiarism.

Then again, we are on bitcointalk and here we have a bit more relaxed rules in regard to that, so those that call for a ban/tag over something like this are wrong simply because according to bitcointalk practice, this is not plagiarism. As simple as that.

With that being said, I do think that people should be encouraged to deal with verbatim copying in a proper way, no matter whether bitcointalk see it as a plagiarism or not, simply because it is an honest and right thing to do and by doing that we are setting an example for the others, especially new members. I tried to explain that to some users (I thought it's just a matter of ignorance)  that verbatim copying should be dealt with in a proper manner, to no avail.

In a stricter sense like in case this was published somewhere else, what was done here could be counted as plagiarism even if a credit was given at the end of an article or a book for example?

Does it even matter if it is witch hunt or not? airfinex is actually raising a good point if we look at this objectively and think of what plagiarism should be. It's like what suchmoon said, plagiarism is taken lightly by moderator.

It’s not plagiarism certainly but it seems like most of Ratimov's threads are same. If I'm correct, I guess I have seen another such accusation against him. If most of his threads are same (copy paste with source), that's ridiculous but as per rule, he doesn’t deserve any punishment which is further ridiculous.

I am sorry. It is my mistakes. You can see in my post with examples, I stated it is not a plagiarism. I lost the word "not". The first usecase is plagiarsim and the last two usecases are not.

Edited it. Thank you for your head up.

No, that would be too extreme, and I don't think anybody would be banned for posting text in quote tags or quote marks or otherwise quoted.

Edit: all cool now.

Without source and without quote brackets, it is plagiarism.

With source and without quote brackets: it is not a plagiarism.
Without source and with quote brackets: it is surely not a plagiarism.

Some people discussed about Verbatim plagiarism and I see it does not a matter on the forum. In my opinion, it is a shame to hide parts you copy and paste then mix such parts with your own opinion.

If you see a copy-paste topic from newsletters
'bitcoinst' abusing signature campaign with alt account & spamming by copy-paste. bitcoinst is not banned and Ratimov won't with links.
For beginners what is technical analysis. Say lies, take Arabic version and Google translate, don't leave link or English version. That user was banned.

Plagiarism as a result of cultural differences

This style is bad. Readers have to spend time to compare that topic and article to get topic creator's own opinion and copy paste part from article. I said bad as this reason but no ban as the forum allows it.

If that user is not banned, why Ratimov would be banned? Ratimov style is better.

---

Quote brackets for shared, copied-pasted content should be a mandatory requirement, I hope the forum will add it to the unofficial rules.
- No drama
- No personal assasination
- No shady intention

>Ratimov takes article in Russian
>Uses Google translate on whole article
>Posts in English
>Passes off as own work ("In this article I would like to touch upon")
>?????
>Profit from Chipmixer payment

Question 1. Why not banned?
Question 2. How is he selected by Chipmixer when he just CTRL C / CTRL V?

What, then, are your claims against Ratimov? At the beginning, you write that there are sources, but they are not relevant:
And then you write that they are, but specified for formality:
You would have already decided on the line of accusation.

Sources and are specified for formality, so that it is clear to everyone where the text was borrowed from and that it was not the author of the topic who composed it.

As far as forum rules go, providing the source is enough. Even just adding quotes ([quote] or "...") without giving a source would probably be enough to avoid a ban. Contrary to popular belief, the plagiarism rule and application thereof is very lenient. It's usually fine as long as moderators can see that the user didn't intend to pass the text as their own.

Now whether starting a paragraph with "I would like to..." and ending it with copypasta and the source being mentioned only somewhere in the fine print constitutes good writing style - that's a different discussion. I think that's misleading borderline on dishonest. A literal quote should be formatted as such.

I did not say that there are no sources, they are for "formality", at the very bottom.