nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, Administrators
22,417
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 54:
Line 54: + +
→Plagiarism
:::::: I don't know enough about the details here, but only ''unauthorized'' copying is not allowed. If there is strong reason to think the original writer consents to the copying -- and that may be the case in this pro-life context -- then copying is not a problem, particularly if properly sourced. Do we know if the original writer consents to this copying? Also, the heading here is "plagiarism", but it's not plagiarism if the reference is properly provided.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I don't know enough about the details here, but only ''unauthorized'' copying is not allowed. If there is strong reason to think the original writer consents to the copying -- and that may be the case in this pro-life context -- then copying is not a problem, particularly if properly sourced. Do we know if the original writer consents to this copying? Also, the heading here is "plagiarism", but it's not plagiarism if the reference is properly provided.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I'm aware of no reason—strong or otherwise—to think that the original writer consents to the copying. And the source is not pro-life, but ostensibly neutral, giving ten reasons for and ten reasons against, so there's no reason to think that they would give consent on the basis of being "on-side", which is what you appear to be alluding to. The reference was not originally (when the heading was written) "properly" provided; there was a link to the source, but no indication that the information had been copied wholesale from that source. I'm (still) with Hsmom on this one—the copying is too much to constitute 'fair use', so, even with attribution, amounts to a copyright violation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:40, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I'm aware of no reason—strong or otherwise—to think that the original writer consents to the copying. And the source is not pro-life, but ostensibly neutral, giving ten reasons for and ten reasons against, so there's no reason to think that they would give consent on the basis of being "on-side", which is what you appear to be alluding to. The reference was not originally (when the heading was written) "properly" provided; there was a link to the source, but no indication that the information had been copied wholesale from that source. I'm (still) with Hsmom on this one—the copying is too much to constitute 'fair use', so, even with attribution, amounts to a copyright violation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:40, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Six arguments have been deleted making the article to have less "significant portions" borrowed. One has a new "similar" word. Now it is your turn to improved it with your better English knowledge. By the way, "significant portions" could go from 1% to 90% of the work depending the importance of the benefits that you obtain and the damage that you create. If you find my profit some where, please send it to me; now we get more ''pesos'' for one ''dollar''! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:06, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
===References===
===References===