Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Citing quoted or lifted material

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill, FL
    Posts
    3,927

    Default

    Very nice quilt. Beautiful to hang on the wall or bed, completely lousy for the field. And for the record, if one is going to plagiarize someone's work, at least take out the notation number first. Its fine to copy information to share for research, but cite it as such if it isn't your own free knowledge. At least give Wikipedia some love.
    Ross L. Lamoreaux
    Tampa Bay History Center
    www.tampabayhistorycenter.org
    On Facebook at: Tampa Bay History Center Living History Programs

    "The simplest things, done well, can carry a huge impact" - Karin Timour, 2012

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danny
    Ross, seriously, give credit to Wikipedia as a source? Not necessary, it's a dumping ground that's an ok place to find leads to credible sources... nothing more...
    Giving credit doesn't mean the source is good. It just prevents someone from looking like a plagiarist when they cut and paste.

    Hank Trent
    hanktrent@voyager.net

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    N Illinois
    Posts
    574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hanktrent
    Giving credit doesn't mean the source is good. It just prevents someone from looking like a plagiarist when they cut and paste. Hank Trent
    Hank -

    That tool is in constant change - the whole point to a Wiki - and itself includes plagiarized information, not to mention false information. So there's no particular moral or practical imperative to legitimize it. It's an ethereal collective. Let's prevent anyone looking like a humbug when their credited source reads differently a week or two later.

    dw

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danny
    Hank -

    That tool is in constant change - the whole point to a Wiki - and itself includes plagiarized information, not to mention false information. So there's no particular moral or practical imperative to legitimize it. It's an ethereal collective. Let's prevent anyone looking like a humbug when their credited source reads differently a week or two later.

    dw
    I guess you're saying that it should not be quoted or used as a source at all? Okay, fine.

    But my point is, if a person does decide to use it as a source, they should at least cite it. Presenting others' words as one's own is deceptive, and rationalizing, "well, they stole it from somebody else so I figure it was okay to steal it from them," has never been much of a defense.

    Hank Trent
    hanktrent@voyager.net

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    N Illinois
    Posts
    574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hanktrent
    I guess you're saying that it should not be quoted or used as a source at all? Okay, fine.
    First of all, apologies to the rest to be off-topic from the coverlet thing, but, you know, these things just pop up and if they're relevant to our study of the ACW, aren't we flexible enough to bear with a few posts on it?

    So Hank, no need to exaggerate. I merely suggested a Wiki needn't be credited. Still, they are good as a source and to quote when you want to bring others up to speed on a nitch topic. Light conversation if you will. But, as you probably know, College profs and some High School teachers won't accept info credited to a Wiki.

    To take the deeper dive on the morality thing; in the case of a Wiki you're not taking anyone's words as your own without giving them credit because there's no "one" to take words from. Even if identified to a particular contributor, a fact donated there is knowingly and freely surrendered to public discretion.

    dw

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    325

    Default

    Danny wrote: "I merely suggested a Wiki needn't be credited..."

    Perhaps you'd like to read about Wikipedia's fair use clause:
    "Small quotations of Wikipedia content, with its source attributed, may be permissible under the "fair use" clause of US copyright law. See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia for information about the proper citation of articles. No permission is needed to create a hyperlink to Wikipedia or its articles."
    Quote Originally Posted by Danny
    To take the deeper dive on the morality thing; in the case of a Wiki you're not taking anyone's words as your own without giving them credit because there's no "one" to take words from. Even if identified to a particular contributor, a fact donated there is knowingly and freely surrendered to public discretion.
    Plagiarism is taking other people's work and making it look like your own. It doesn't matter whether or not you know who wrote it. But back to Wikipedia
    "local copyrights are granted to authors in their respective nations, and authors do not transfer their copyrights to Wikipedia (they grant an non-exclusive license)..."
    Linda.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Easton, PA
    Posts
    5,145

    Default

    I am going to have to weigh in on the side of the Trents on this issue. If you are posting verbatim material from another source or posting a picture from another site, I am going to request that you please cite the source for the material. Not only should the material be cited, it should either be within quotation marks or contained in a quotation box. I don't care about what the reputation for accuracy of the source, if you are copying material verbatim from it, you should indicate such by either the quotation marks or quote box and give proper credit to the source. This is purely a matter of intellectual honesty and, being the moderator of two conference ares, it is a matter that I intend to start enforcing. Thank you for your future cooperation.
    Thomas H. Pritchett
    Moderator, Military & Other Business Conferences
    www.campgeiger.org

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •