nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 55:
Line 55: − + + + + +
→Plagiarism: Better, but still needs work.
::::::: 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)
::::::: 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)
::::::::: It is now a small enough quote that it is probably acceptable from a copyright point of view. "Significant portions" ''cannot'' go from 1% to 90% of a work; this sort of this is usually fairly-well defined, from case history if nothing else, although I don't recall what the percentages are.
::::::::: I've also reverted your change to "similar"; when you are ''quoting'' (which it is now shown as), then it needs to be an exact quote, not an altered one (there are some exceptions, but even they need to be clearly shown as changes).
::::::::: Nevertheless, for a few reasons, including the problem with the arguments ''as quoted'', it would be best to eliminate this quote and rewrite them in our own words. I don't know when I will get a chance to do that, but then it doesn't have to be me doing it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
===Comment===
===Comment===