So I think the best solution is, to include the sentence "I am not the source, this information came from the following articles:" at the end, before the list of links.
Why at the end? That is inverted thinking, especially because the forum’s format gives a byline for the author of every post: The poster’s username. That is up top.
In general (ignoring weird edge cases), the only acceptable way properly to give credit for lengthy copied material is to present the actual author’s name (and, if applicable, the source hyperlink) on a byline prominently displayed at the top of the copied material. Cf. the forum’s <quote> block format, which attributes a quotation at the top thereof.
Anything else here is either improper attribution, or plagiarism, depending on whether the person doing it has made a good-faith effort to cite the source. Last month, I quoted an academic writing resource’s explanation of the difference. Somebody who appears to have tried to cite the source, and made a mistake, deserves guidance (if appropriate, via a polite PM). Somebody who prefaces the copied material with text unavoidably implying authorship thereof, and buries a source link in a tiny-text list of links at the bottom, has clearly committed plagiarism.
This is the only definition of plagiarism that matters:
Copied text from somewhere: check.
Has a good reason for it: check.
Link to the source: check.
Ergo, Ratimov did not commit plagiarism as defined by the admin of the forum. Any case to be made that Ratimov should still be punished should be based on evidence that other users have been banned for plagiarism even after including the source, which AFAIK has never happened.
Common rule violations
These are the most common rule violations that newbies make. There are other rules than these.
These are the most common rule violations that newbies make. There are other rules than these.
- Plagiarism: If you copy some text from somewhere, then you should have a good reason for it, and you must link to the source. Doing otherwise is plagiarism. Changing a few words around doesn't matter. If we find that you plagiarized, then you absolutely will be permanently banned, even if we find it years after you did it.
Copied text from somewhere: check.
Has a good reason for it: check.
Link to the source: check.
Ergo, Ratimov did not commit plagiarism as defined by the admin of the forum. Any case to be made that Ratimov should still be punished should be based on evidence that other users have been banned for plagiarism even after including the source, which AFAIK has never happened.
nutildah’s illogical hairsplitting and rules-lawyering over a mechanistic parsing of a quote demonstrates empirically that using LSD can permanently compromise one’s powers of judgment and reasoning. PSA: It is an irreparably damaging “experience” that young people should avoid!
Pro tip nutildah: Twisting theymos’ words to cover burying a tiny “source” link in the middle of a misrepresented list of “source” links, at the very bottom of a copied-pasted post that (a) did not name the original author, (b) dishonestly claimed Ratimov’s authorship (“In this article I...”), shows only that you yourself are mentally deranged and/or malicious and dishonest. All of the above, I think.
Going by your own standards, Lauda should have been banned for plagiarism.
Lauda and cryptohunter, on the other hand, both committed plagiarism according to these standards. It's pretty clear if you are able to set emotional judgment aside.
nutildah, your obsessive, unjustified cryptohunter-style attack on Lauda is also quite revealing. CH, it is such a nice secret fan club you have here! Now, watch me pick them apart.
- What Lauda did was orders of magnitude less-bad in scope and in level of dishonesty than Ratimov’s plagiarism. nutildah perversely inverts the truth in comparing the two. Lauda never intentionally ripped off whole posts from foreign language articles, laundered them through an automated translator, and then posted them as new topic OPs prefaced by a line dishonestly claiming authorship (“In this article I would like to touch upon...”).
- If Lauda had done that, and/or if Lauda had reacted to the plagiarism accusation the same way as Ratimov has, then I would have eaten kitty-chops, extra rare, with a nice Chianti.I was about ready to dine on feline fillet; and I grilled Lauda about this in private.
A bank’s KYC/AML compliance officer once tried to test me. I was critical of his discourteous intrusion.
She did not, because she was an honest person. Nobody is perfect. At the baseline, honest people who are caught in some past wrongdoing (usually due to sincere mistakes) do not attack the accuser, declare that wrongdoing is right in principle, and remorselessly insist that they will keep doing wrong.Thank you for reporting these.
In the circumstance, Lauda did the best to make right that she could do without a time machine. In private, that was also the first time that, among other things, I heard her mention the idea of requesting a self-ban—in the manner of kitty seppuku. I had to talk her out of it. For obvious reasons, I did not want to disclose that publicly at the time when all of Lauda’s enemies were demanding that she be banned.🌸🌸🌸🀥🌸🌸🌸
the way of the warrior
if your friend self-eviscerates
beheading is friendship
Base image source: The Gist of Japan: The Islands, Their People, And Missions, Rev. R. B. Peery, A.M., Ph.D. (1897), p. 85,
via Wikimedia Commons.
I don’t think that that had anything to do with what happened in October. Her activity did drop off a cliff after May; but from my view of the situation, I think that it was probably a coincidence—probably. Anyway, nutildah and cryptohunter can now both celebrate together that “the banned plagiarist Lauda” is gone! - If Lauda had done anything like this anytime recently, I would have seen it differently. Ratimov is committing extreme plagiarism much worse than anything that Lauda ever did, and he is doing it right now.
That is reality. If you don’t like it, o nutty nutildah, take another hit of acid to make it go away.
P.S., protip for nutildah and suchmoon: Pretending to ignore me renders you (even more) impotent as a debate opponent. It also makes you look silly to the audience, when you reasonably need to respond to something that I said. Awkward! Please keep doing it. Thanks.