And just how knowledgable are people ?

[Guest Pearl69er]

After the controversy that raged for days ( or was it hours) on this board but even more so on another board where it didn't even happen, but a tiny handful of a certain poster's haters took the opportunity to put the boot in, the amount of ignorance demonstrated about aknowledging credit was appaling. Blinded by hate for a colourful character who they've been looking for a chink in his armour- they finally let loose.

 

All they did was show they don't have a clue. The biggest goose is the self style intellectual of that board who as soon as his superior status as a big fish in a very small pond is threatened, he lets loose and fires some very big guns but always demonstrates an appaling ignorance of journalism but hopes to dazzle everyone with a series of mixed metaphors and some witty prose. It seems to work for the proles in the front stalls who clap like seals.

 

A quick sqizz at his blog reveals a series of posts replete with stories that could only come from internet news sites and not one is accredited. And that is the first rule. You always credit your source -no matter that you take the information, turn it around and fashion it into your own words or style. When you don't , it is called plagiarism. It's certainly a common offence on the interenet but that doesn't make it right.

 

Unless of course he is locked into the the world of political press releases and recieves a stream of press releases direct from Washington and Downing Street but I think not. They don't tend to give accreditation to annonymous web-sites and annonymous bloggers.

 

What a funny topsy old turvy world we live in where black is white and visa versa.

[bkkguy]

A quick sqizz at his blog reveals a series of posts replete with stories that could only come from internet news sites and not one is accredited. And that is the first rule. You always credit your source -no matter that you take the information, turn it around and fashion it into your own words or style. When you don't , it is called plagiarism.

 

and you think others don't have a clue!

 

if you read a news item on a few internet news sites and local newspapers and see it on some TV news broadcasts, then write a blog entry about the now widely know facts then nobody is going to accuse you of plagiarism - if however you reproduce one site's item verbatim, or include exclusive content from one site, or quote analysis and opinion from one or more sites without attribution then there is a good case for copyright infringement or plagiarism

 

bkkguy

 

[Gaybutton]

As long as the subject is being continued here, I don't thing the issue is who is right about what constitutes plagiarism. The issue is taking a published item and changing the words around in a blatantly obvious attempt to make it appear as ifit was written by someone else and the information was gathered by someone else. Maybe it's legal and maybe it isn't, but it's definitely not right. And nothing anyone can say is going to make it right.