⭐ Merited by wooI_Ioow (1)
This is plagiarism. Extreme plagiarism: It is a more sophisticated form of “text-spinning”.
Some of those who think that it is not plagiarism may be fooled by the language barrier. I suggest taking a closer look at how the referenced English post is stitched together from others’ words.
Assembling an essay from (translated) copies of others’ words, in the manner as if they are your own words, and then placing links to “sources” at the bottom, makes it appear as if you referred to the “sources” as the sources of information for text that you wrote yourself. —Which is plagiarism. In substance. By definition.
Rikafip’s initial remark is correct as to the substantial essence of the matter. Ratimov’s deflection that this is not academia is a misdirection.
How many words does Ratimov actually write by himself on this forum?
Besides stealing credit for authorship, this also devalues the effort of those who produce original work.
I say this based on personal experience with the time and effort required to produce a post of length, scope, and quality comparable to the referenced post which claims to be “by” Ratimov, but instead is slapped together from pieces of others’ work.
For the record: For over two weeks, I have been planning an action related to the Russian forum which idiots may now mistake as being incited by this. It is the reason for several of the exclusions that I made 2020-11-21, which barely missed Loyce’s 2020-11-21 scrape. It has been delayed by distractions from the forum’s most highly trusted trolls, and by IRL personal tasks.
I didn’t know that Ratimov was stitching together posts from words written by others. I did know that plagiarism and other wrongdoing are unaccountably acceptable behaviour in the judgment of Russian DTs.
I dislike the growing trend of plagiarism accusations being used as a political weapon on this forum. I further dislike the trend of brushing off valid accusations with ad hominem diversionary responses to alt accounts.
Emphasis is in the original:
For example, when Lauda was correctly accused in May, neither Lauda nor I made the idiotic ad hominem “n00btroll, go away” brush-off. Although I infer that person behind that particular account probably had a malicious anti-Lauda motive for expending the effort to dig up those six-year-old posts (!), the use of an alt account was unnecessary in that case: I know from private discussion that Lauda would not have retaliated for a correct accusation made on the basis of sound evidence. Furthermore, both Lauda and I merited a different Newbie account’s thoughtfully presented inculpatory analysis of her posts. The argument thereby stated was cogent, professionally presented, and apparently not malicious despite its harshness towards Lauda; I thought that it was meritorious.
Compare Ratimov’s response here: Shoot the messenger.
I don’t care who OP is, or what his motive is, if he brings a valid accusation backed by evidence.
Please address the substance of the matter.
Some of those who think that it is not plagiarism may be fooled by the language barrier. I suggest taking a closer look at how the referenced English post is stitched together from others’ words.
Assembling an essay from (translated) copies of others’ words, in the manner as if they are your own words, and then placing links to “sources” at the bottom, makes it appear as if you referred to the “sources” as the sources of information for text that you wrote yourself. —Which is plagiarism. In substance. By definition.
Rikafip’s initial remark is correct as to the substantial essence of the matter. Ratimov’s deflection that this is not academia is a misdirection.
It makes no sense to quote further, since the rest of the text is also plagiarism.
How many words does Ratimov actually write by himself on this forum?
And this is the case not only with this article, but with everyone. How else can you get 3000 Merits? And so it will be as long as there are people who encourage plagiarism by sending it merit.
Besides stealing credit for authorship, this also devalues the effort of those who produce original work.
I say this based on personal experience with the time and effort required to produce a post of length, scope, and quality comparable to the referenced post which claims to be “by” Ratimov, but instead is slapped together from pieces of others’ work.
For the record: For over two weeks, I have been planning an action related to the Russian forum which idiots may now mistake as being incited by this. It is the reason for several of the exclusions that I made 2020-11-21, which barely missed Loyce’s 2020-11-21 scrape. It has been delayed by distractions from the forum’s most highly trusted trolls, and by IRL personal tasks.
I didn’t know that Ratimov was stitching together posts from words written by others. I did know that plagiarism and other wrongdoing are unaccountably acceptable behaviour in the judgment of Russian DTs.
I dislike the growing trend of plagiarism accusations being used as a political weapon on this forum. I further dislike the trend of brushing off valid accusations with ad hominem diversionary responses to alt accounts.
Emphasis is in the original:
I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.
I sometimes find it helpful to read a post without looking at its author’s name. That applies both to good posts, and to things that come off as surprisingly... otherwise.
For example, when Lauda was correctly accused in May, neither Lauda nor I made the idiotic ad hominem “n00btroll, go away” brush-off. Although I infer that person behind that particular account probably had a malicious anti-Lauda motive for expending the effort to dig up those six-year-old posts (!), the use of an alt account was unnecessary in that case: I know from private discussion that Lauda would not have retaliated for a correct accusation made on the basis of sound evidence. Furthermore, both Lauda and I merited a different Newbie account’s thoughtfully presented inculpatory analysis of her posts. The argument thereby stated was cogent, professionally presented, and apparently not malicious despite its harshness towards Lauda; I thought that it was meritorious.
Compare Ratimov’s response here: Shoot the messenger.
It's okay, just another idiot-troll who, not understanding the situation, runs screaming in the meta, hoping to make some kind of sensation. What a pity that he spent so much time decorating the text, but did not find the time to read my topics more carefully. 
I don’t care who OP is, or what his motive is, if he brings a valid accusation backed by evidence.
Please address the substance of the matter.