...even though it's not a bannable offence.
Why not? It is a clear-cut textbook example of definitional plagiarism.
I think it mostly fits the description of “Source-based Plagiarism” in the Turnitin.com Plagiarism Spectrum 2.0 (infographic PDF), though what Ratimov did is worse insofar as he clearly made himself appear to be the original author of the text. Really, what Ratimov did is just old-fashioned plagiarism with some duplicitous double-talk about “sources”.
I don’t think that everything on that spectrum is applicable outside academia—in particular, “self-plagiarism”. If e.g. a forum member were habitually to copy and paste his own articles into the forum from his own website, then it would not be “plagiarism” in any meaningful sense here; but it may be spamming, which is also against the rules. Anyway, some of the concepts on that infographic are certainly useful in this discussion.
FTFY:
However this:
I think that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
.
.
.
long text
.
.
.
<size=1pt>
sources:
[...lots ’o links...]
- https: // example.com/unidentified-link/to/an-article-written-in-a-different-language
[...moar moar links!...]
</size>
... is misleading, and definitely plagiarism
I think that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
.
.
.
long text
.
.
.
<size=1pt>
sources:
[...lots ’o links...]
- https: // example.com/unidentified-link/to/an-article-written-in-a-different-language
[...moar moar links!...]
</size>
... is misleading, and definitely plagiarism