Topic: Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ - page 5. (Read 1048158 times)

After reading this topic, I noticed that one of FAQs should be edited.


In addition to Logging in, sending PMs and reporting posts, searching is also counted as posting.

Reference:

The wide majority of SEO spam already falls under rule 1. Adding additional cases that are relevant right now (but will change / disappear in the future) would only hurt the readability of the rules.

Hi mprep.

Can we have a small update in the OP about SEO ?
Right now I'm facing a massive attack from "search engine optimizers" (well OK, I've 4 cases in a month, but for me it's a lot ) and without the vigilance of another member I wouldn't have seen them because it's very vicious and dishonest.

I have two examples of these "attacks" :
A newbie comes to ask a legitimate question in a topic and a few days later, he comes to edit and add a link to his site (which is not related to cryptos or the topic).
And another newbie quotes a message containing a link and changes the destination of the link to put his site. In this post, Yogg's link has been changed.

Maybe we should add "No SEO links" (or something like that) in rule 1, 4, 5 or 6.

I know that SEO is not new and we won't be able to eradicate it, but at least if it's within the rules, it would encourage members to report this kind of thing.

As with automated translations, in the end the rules are enforced by moderators. Me trying to zero in on what is and isn't plagiarism more than I already have would only reflect my own approach towards the enforcement of said rule. As theymos mentioned numerous times, there are reasons as to why there are no "official, hard rules (aside from the few legally-required ones)" - it's up to individual moderators to decide whether acting on amperceived violation of forum policy is the "right" thing to do. As such, I don't think there's a need to expand or adjust rule 33, at least not at this point in time.

Cross-reference to an example for the below:  This is proper attribution of a copied-pasted post.

---

Thanks for your responses, theymos and mprep!  My inquiry about Rule 27 is well-answered.

Now quoting slightly out of context what theymos, mprep, and I each said about Rule 27, but now in application to Rule 33:




Is the excuse, “but he provided a ‘source’ link!  (somehow—sort of—without really identifying authorship)” not rules-lawyering at its worst?


^^^ Rules-lawyering, Exhibit 0.  From that thread alone, I could provide many more examples—some of them from people who have no personal animosity towards me.

---

In the context of the Ratimov case, and the types of so-called “source” that Ratimov has provided in multiple copied-pasted posts, what you are saying means that plagiarism is acceptable on this forum, and is not against the rules.  That would be shocking to me—and, I have no doubt, to many other veteran users, who accord to this forum a respect undeserved by the many forums that are cesspools of plagiarism.

This post confuses plagiarism with copyright, which is one of my pet peeves; but at least theymos’ heart was in the right place here:
Note for theymos:  The complete works of Shakespeare are in the public domain.  No copyright, no licence!  Nonetheless, it is unacceptable to plagiarise Shakespeare.  Plagiarism and copyright are different issues.  I am not the only one who says so.

What if I were to find an old essay posted by theymos on some obscure website, copy and paste it into a topic OP on this forum, and just toss in an anonymous “source” link at the bottom—without prominently identifying the author by name (“by theymos”), or even naming the author at all?  Would theymos consider his own desire for attribution to be satisfied?

---

I think that too many people are applying a rules-lawyer’s logically fallacious, absolutely mechanistic misinterpretation of the exact letter of what theymos said here:


My own reading is that theymos was expressing what he himself deems to be a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.  That theymos statement has been twisted into a loophole to avoid crediting authors by name—and even to avoid making it clear to readers the person who copied the article is not the author!  Whereas in substance, proper credit for authorship is the most important part.  The link is secondary to that, although I fully agree that a link should be provided when a webpage is the principal original source.

The interpretation of that statement being argued by others not only violates academic and publishing industry standards:  It defies common sense.  I would be aghast if theymos were to say that it is in the spirit of the rules.

---

On the other hand:  If it be acceptable to copy and paste the text of a whole post with a vague link at the bottom, and no prominently displayed authorial byline, then the word “plagiarism” would need to be removed from the rules.  (And its equivalents, in all languages.)

The word “plagiarism” has a meaning.  That meaning is open to some measure of debate; indeed, it is the subject of much debate in academia and in the writing professions.  However, the forum should not make up a new definition of “plagiarism” which flatly contradicts what any intelligent person would expect it to mean.

In the abstract, plagiarism is wrong because it means stealing credit for another’s creative original work.  In every question about plagiarism, start by asking:  Does X tend to cause readers to give credit to the wrong person?  —Does Y show an intent to make the alleged plagiarist look smarter, wiser, or more knowledgeable than he really is, by stealing another’s glory?


That is my own definition.  As I have demonstrated on several different threads in the past month or so, I can also cite numerous sources backing the essential substance of my opinion, from academic integrity resources to publishing industry best practices.

N.b. that inadequate attribution may not be plagiarism per se, if done in ignorance or clumsiness.  In that case, the user should be educated about how properly to provide credit.  For a post that substantially consists of a single copy and paste, that means an authorial byline, prominently displayed at the top.  —With the author’s name, not merely an unexplained, unidentified link.

Note to avoid nitpicks by rules-lawyers:  I think that a link may sometimes suffice for short quotes, if the site itself is being credited as the author; particularly, it may make sense for some Web publications.  But generally, unless the link is to the author’s own vanity domain or to a publication substantially run by the author, a link in itself does not really identify who the author is.

I am not trying to get people in trouble for honest mistakes, or occasional minor sloppiness with the author= field in blocks, or even things that may be honest mistakes!  I myself have sometimes PMed users a polite tip about how properly to cite copied material, with a warning that they may be accused of plagiarism.  I only take a hard line when it is very clear to me that a user has dishonest intentions—that he wants to trick others into believing that he himself is the author.

If a user is aware of this issue, then making copied-pasted posts in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to misidentify authorship is plagiarism.  By definition.  And if it is not against the forum rules, then the forum rules allow plagiarism.

---

Furthermore, as to a related issue about which I have been intending to inquire for awhile:

I suggest that the rule should distinguish between plagiarism, and insubstantive copies of one-liner shitposts, etc.  I agree that both should be against the rules; but they are distinct violations.  If e.g. a user copies and pastes a post in an ANN thread that says only, “hello good luck with project”, then it is not “plagiarism”, for there is no original substance to plagiarise.

To call that “plagiarism” trivialises the severity of actual plagiarism.  I suggest that the usual penalty for such no-value copies of no-value posts should be proportionately much lower than the usual penalty for plagiarism:  Temp ban for first offence, versus permaban.

---

Whereupon I request a review of Rule 33:  Either the word “plagiarism” should be removed, or it needs to be clarified that simply tossing in a link somewhere does not suffice to avoid plagiarism; and some distinction should be made between plagiarism, and no-value unattributed copying.

I do not want to suggest any rigid format for citations and attributions of authorship in all cases.  I don’t think that such a thing should be made a rule, as such.  However, to show how one should act in the spirit of the rules, I have created a new topic with a copied-pasted OP, as my example of optimal attribution of authorship in some types of circumstances.

---

Thanks again for your attention to this matter.  I hope that this discussion will result in constructive actions both to prevent the evasive gaming of the plagiarism rule, and to help increase awareness of the issues by people who may simply be clumsy in attribution.

I've expressed my own personal opinion on the matter - other moderators can (and some probably will) disagree with me and crack down on it much harder than I would. Do note that I'm not arguing for these posts being completely-100%-a-okay, more so saying that unlike regular plain plagiarism (taking content and posting it as your own without a source) such actions won't get you a permanent ban for a single post. Depending on the context (e.g. it's a single post / topic or it's a recurring pattern within a user's post history) and content, the post itself may be considered as low value but that's going to have to be decided on a case by case basis. Same with what to do with such a post / topic (delete, edit, lock, leave it be, etc.) and the one who posted it.

---

EDIT: In regards to automated translations from non-English to English, I've PMed theymos about it, specifically with the following questions:

• What is the exact policy on automated translations (both English -> local, as well as local -> English)?
• When is it [read: automated translations] prohibited?
• When is it allowed (e.g. possible scenarios or situations)?
• When is it arguable and up to the moderator's discretion?

Here's what he had to say (publishing this with his permission, of course):


Taking his response into account as well as the concerns I raised in my reply to nullius, I think I'm going to leave the rules as they currently are. Rule 1 (and rule 23) cover the situation well enough. I might slightly revise rule 27 in the future but I don't think it's a pressing concern and in the majority of cases (e.g. article or ANN topic spam) the rule applies as it is written. A lot of the, let's say, "creative" interpretations of the rules (what theymos refers to as "rule-lawyering") are probably gonna be invalidated by rule 23, unless they are following the spirit of the rule / policy.

If you say "I think that " what other intent is there? I'm not arguing for a permaban here but I think (and this is indeed my own personal thought LOL) that we are getting bogged down in technicalities too much. Yes, technically a source was provided. But someone reading text like that would reasonably assume that it's indeed the person's own thought. IMO moderators can and should issue a warning / edit the post / delete the post / tempban the user / use other non-fatal tools available to them in cases like that, depending on the severity.

Reminds me of some trolling sockpuppets that are getting a free pass because technically we can't prove they're sockpuppets, ban evaders, etc with some bulletproof blockchain evidence... so they go on even though there is zero value in allowing them to continue.

Indeed he did. However, if a user clearly provided a source he got the info from, it's a bit difficult to argue he's trying to pass the content off as his own.

1 of the users shared these quotes.

Coming from another perspective, but I also believe that a revision to rule #27; or at least to its interpretation would be benefitial.

Ddmr correctly pointed out that online translators have come a long way since this rule was first created, and it was most likely first created to prevent people from posting some incomprehensible gibberish. We are at a point in which it's getting hard to tell when a person has written the post by themselves or used a tool to do so. I've also explained how I can think of a couple of use cases for this kind of tools, but it'd be good to see that a line is clearly defined between "commercial" and "personal" translated posts.

I know you don't really make the rules, but again, a revision from the upper desks on this matter would benefit local boards, cleansing them from a plague of wannabe translator looking for a quick buck.

---

I'm not going to make any comment regarding the rest of the mentioned posts; as I haven't had enough time to follow the corresponding threads and make an opinion out of it

If he provided a source, AFAIK it isn't plagiarism. As I've mentioned in my reply to nullius, it might be deemed low value (specifically low value automated translation spam; that is if it was an automated translation of non-english content).

Added an edit / clarification to my reply to nullius as well.

If someone copied a bunch of English text, prefixed it with "I think ..." and provided a source at the end - is this plagiarism or not? The particular example (Ratimov's case) has very little to do with translations, other than perhaps it's harder to spot translated copypasta. Or if he translated the text without using automated tools it would still be the same issue.

I can't exactly dictate what the forum rules actually are. To quote an older post of mine:


That being said, you do bring up a good point - the supposed loophole within the (unofficial list of) rules. While I could argue that this is covered by rules 1 and 23 (as well as the fact that this topic isn't supposed to be an official and definitive list of rules, but merely an easy to reference source during conversations about rules), it's stretching the definition of rule 1 a bit too much for my liking. However, as you've mentioned, removing the "local" clause doesn't exactly cover all situations where an automated translation might be justified. The amendments would also go against my policy of making the list "simple" (in a relative sense; as compared to the long and complicated history that has lead to all the policies / soft-rules being enforced now) first and foremost and only then focus on covering as much ground as possible.

Since (AFAIK) theymos is the be-all-end-all source of Bitcointalk's rules policy, I'll send him a message and see what he thinks.

EDIT: To clarify, the loophole in the current definition is allowing automated translations of non-English content into English. Obviously, should you try to do this, your thread will be trashed since, as I've mentioned, rule 1 applies nonetheless.

I request that Rule #27 be reviewed, and potentially clarified with a note; but I am ambivalent about asking for it to be changed in substance.


The problem with broadening that rule to prohibit all posting of machine-translated content is that the forum’s main language is English, and its primary administrative language is English.  Translated content from Local boards must oftentimes be posted in Global, for reasons ranging from scam investigations, to the Meta discussion of Local staff and Local merit sources, to—well, I can think of many valid reasons for this; and the reasons are not restricted to any particular board.  And sometimes, it may even be reasonably necessary to post a translation of an entire article or post in Global.  Overall, it would be unreasonable to expect that all such translations be done by a human.

Furthermore, as a practical matter, there are limited staff with the necessary language competency for moderating each Local board.  If the posting of automated translations in Local were allowed, then it is foreseeable that the problems thus created would be uncontrollable.  Whereas Global has much more manpower.

IIUC, the rule must stop Local users from sigspamming and/or inappropriately multiposting by such means, and/or stop inauthentic users, especially spammers, from using automated translation tools to attempt posting in boards where they actually know nothing about the local language.  The potential problems with automated translation in Global are subtly but significantly different.

The question raised in the Ratimov case is already covered by the plagiarism rule.  However, it may be wise to add a note to #27 clarifying that (a) it does not apply in Global, and (b) Rule #33 and its note prohibit using machine translation to plagiarize anywhere, whether in a Local board or not.

It may also be wise to somewhat broaden Rule #27 to restrict certain types of posts made in Global with automated translation.  However, it would be difficult to do this in a way that is (a) concise (= shorter than a typical nullius post), (b) fully fair, without “gotchas”, to people who have a legitimate reason to use automated translation, and (c) resistant to hairsplitting and rules-lawyering by those who don’t.  I invite discussion of how best the objectives of the forum rules could be achieved on this point.

In the spirit of the rules, so as for the letter thereof.

Thanks.

---

It is obviously plagiarism.  Not only “copy and paste”, but a definitive example of extreme plagiarism by a remorseless, habituated plagiarist whose response is to deny that he is doing anything whatsoever wrong, to insist that he will continue to do it, and to counterattack ad hominem against anybody who accuses him.


What Ratimov is doing is indefensible.  ← Cover up the name, and you will see that a Newbie account doing the same thing would be instantly permabanned—depending on its post history, perhaps even nuked.  Anybody who defends it is untrustworthy and has untrustworthy judgment.  I have trust-excluded people for much less; and I have I even red-tagged cryptohunter for much less, when it comes to cheap rationalizations of plagiarism.

What if a member just translates one article word for word? And presents the article as if in his own name «In this article I would like to touch upon such a theme as»  and adds many sources to make it look like he used all of them when writing.

I don't understand why others are protecting him. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-source-plagiarist-5297144

Added another exception I've missed to rule 12 and adjusted its wording:


EDIT: Also fixed a few spelling errors.

To the extent that you are trying to be genuine in your proposal, wooI_Ioow, I am not really clear how such proposal would work exactly.

Theymos and moderators are not bots, and it does not even seem to be a great task for a bot to attempt to determine exactly what rises to the level of a violable offense.  There is a certain amount of human discretion involved in terms of whether proper credit was given, or if the plagiarizer was stealing the ideas of someone else without giving proper attributions.

Plagiarizing is likely most frequently caught these days by using bots to see matching text, but human decision making would be necessary to determine if the non-attributed portion rises to the level of plagiarism, and I would imagine that it if the case is somewhat ambiguous, then a lesser punishment will be given than to ban the account.

Anyone in the business of taking the text of someone else and then jumbling up the words or changing some of the words, might be able to meet some kind of minimum threshold in terms of the number of words that were changed, but that still could be considered to be plagiarizing.. discretionary, like I mentioned.

Let's say that you have rule that says that if any string of text is less than 30% matching then that is not plagiarized, so then the copy pasters aim to change 70% of their text in order to be within compliance... ... I must say, this is sounding ridiculous as I am attempting to describe it... because I can see that there might be a whole 100 words, and 70 or them have been changed, but 30 words are still identified as stealing words ideas and not adequately attributing.  Same thing if you have 10 words, but only 3 of them are the original words, and the other 7 were changed, that would still be plagiarizing if those words can be identified as being taken from someone else and not attributed.

Personally, I believe that if someone is a long time member and they are in the habit of contributing to the forum and one or two posts of theirs are found to NOT have proper attributions, they are likely to be given more leeway than someone who is brand new to the forum, so in that sense, it seems to me to attempt to develop a decent reputation as a good poster on the forum in order to lessen the chances that anyone is going to report you for (or accuse you of) plagiarizing. 

Furthermore, just continue to work on your English and your typing so that you do not feel that you need to use the words of someone else (without attribution)... And if you do use the words of someone else, error on the side of giving attributes.... so that it is clear that those are the words of someone else.  The more that you practice giving proper attributions, the easier it will become to do that.

I have had more than 21,000 posts and surely a lot of words that i have posted over the years, and I have never been accused of plagiarism (or failing to give proper attributions), but I bet that if you looked at every one of my posts, there are going to be some examples where I did not give proper attribution.... I am not saying that I am excused, but I am saying that sometimes people can make mistakes in terms of sometimes not giving proper attributions when they should. 

Accordingly, giving proper attribution is something that each of us should always strive to achieve, and some of us have to work harder on making sure that we make such proper attributions as compared with others in order to be able to post our own ideas and sometimes to share the ideas of others by saying that we are getting those ideas from some other poster (or other place on the internet) and some of the ideas are ours and some of the ideas are coming from another source (and attempting to fairly identify that source, too).

If you want to propose changes to the rules or how certain rules are to be interpreted, message theymos about it since he's the only one with the authority to make substantial policy changes. I don't make the rules nor do I decide on how they should be enforced (at least not for all moderators or to such a large degree; there's a reason why rule 23 exists). I've merely documented them as well as some common ways in how they're interpreted.  That lack of authority should be apparent if you take into consideration the topic's name:


This is echoed in both the top and bottom notices:

that might be percentage of total characters. Let's work on this to make it clear.

Personally, I like/support the initial part in your suggestion but AFAIK, there isn't an easy way of measuring "X" ^{[both internally and externally, unless I'm missing something]}.