NT Rule Clarification
Category: Meta for use by Perrie RA and moderators. Member meta goes into the group Metafied found on top tab
By: perrie-halpern • 2 years ago • 90 comments
Recently, it has come to my attention that NT members are citing either part or entire articles without citation from where it is coming from. Let me clarify this.
If it is a quote and it is a famous one, like "There is nothing to fear, but fear itself", you do not need a citation. If it is current, you do.
If it is from an article and it is only part of it, it needs a link.
Now regarding entire articles posted within an article. First whether or not to do this. I will defer to the author on this. If the author of the article or the seed doesn't want it, the mods will remove this. Please flag this "No Value". If the author doesn't mind, it can stay. IT MUST HAVE PROPER CITATION.
Copyright law is very clear about this, and we must follow the law.
Tags
Who is online
83 visitors
I have been getting a lot of questions about citations so I hope this straightens things out.
your comment looks lonely
I know... I'm glad you came to keep it company!
I guess no one has any reason to disagree with you about this Perrie.
Aye aye 'RA'!
When I saw the word 'Citation' I flashed back to writing a college thesis.
Therefore, the logic suggests a paradox. The more we learn the more we don't know: learning provides an illusion of knowledge.
So, in the end, we just wing it.
Is this how it's supposed to work?
That's one way (and I really like that). Here is another:
Can I cite you on that?
BTW, this is a good idea. And it keeps everything legit.
No, learning reveals a deeper reality and thus more unknowns. Learning breaks-down illusions / fantasies / fiction / mere beliefs.
Yeah, I got it. It's a play on words.
But since you appear to wish to delve deeper: Learning depends upon the lack of knowledge. We don't know so we learn and that learning allows progress. Human progress really is shaped by ignorance.
Very well done!
Correct. Learning is the turning of ignorance (the greater part of reality) into knowledge.
Once had a old and grizzled Navy Chief Petty Officer who was my mentor tell me the difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorant people are largely intelligent individuals who just do not know something is wrong but can be taught otherwise. Stupid people, on the other hand, know something is wrong and do it anyway! Very sage I think.
I do agree, as does Confucius, with your premise " The more we learn the more we don't know." From my experience in studying for law exams, at first I thought I knew and understood the course, but as I continued to study I came to the realization of how much I DIDN'T know. So it would take longer than expected to accomplish some knowledge. But then every step is a step along the way. Think of what Confucius said....
If it is a quote and it is a famous one, like "There is nothing to fear, but fear itself", you do not need a citation. If it is current, you do.
If it is from an article and it is only part of it, it needs a link.
Is there a ticket plus penalty? Shouldn't it be included in the Coc?
We had someone here who was proud of saying look it up yourself. I think new rules need clarification before anyone gets a ticket. My ticket came with a quote and mention of who made the quote! Others may not care if it's all news to them.
Now regarding entire articles posted within an article. First whether or not to do this. I will defer to the author on this. If the author of the article or the seed doesn't want it, the mods will remove this. Please flag this "No Value". If the author doesn't mind, it can stay. IT MUST HAVE PROPER CITATION.
Copyright law is very clear about this, and we must follow the law.
That's fairly easy and as far as I know, that was never the complaint. People were told they couldn't post an entire 500 word article as part of a comment.
meh, he'll be back in about a week...
OMG ! This isn't rocket science. Just provide the citation or link where ever and when ever applicable.
OMG ! SINCE FUCKING WHEN ?
You don't make a rule after giving a ticket. This is about a moderator having to explain a ticket and now there is a rule change
And it's about another moderator issuing a ticket for someone citing the new rule!
Matching bookends, you might say.
If someone includes unique and significant words of another and does not include proper citation, that is plagiarism. Depending upon the circumstances (e.g. a published article) it can also be copyright infringement.
This is basic knowledge. Simple remedy: use the blockquote function and cite the source (preferably via a link).
As long as I've been here, I've heard Perrie say that is what we need to do, I never heard it being a rule.
So you'll know: This is the comment in question:
"Indeed, it was treated as racist to even note that Jackson’s record does not offer a clear judicial philosophy. Now, Sen. Whitehouse declares that "Judge Jackson says said ‘I do not have a judicial philosophy.’” It is not clear if we can take Jackson’s word on the subject."....Jonathan Turley
Obviously.
That comment was ticketed by a moderator on 3/24. He was questioned on it by management. He said the ticket was issued because there was no link.
THEN CAME THE RULE CHANGE.
Are you getting it?
Suddenly there is silence.
I was trying to find the quote, Vic. I was responding to your prior words. You just now introduced a specific circumstance so I was checking it out. Took some time to find the quote — turns out to be a tweet.
If you included 'Jonathan Turley' then that is a citation. If that is not sufficient then that is a question of moderation and I am not a moderator.
Since this site has existed. It's in the CoC under "Authoring" policies ( this is NOT a new rule).
From the CoC, under the heading "Authoring policies":
From the ToS:
Posting a quote without making it clear that you are quoting someone else is misappropriation of intellectual property. It is misleading, in that it appears you are posting your own words, rather than someone else's. In short, it's plagiarism, and Perrie could be held liable for allowing it, even unintentionally. And the rule is neither new to this site nor unusual.
You have been here, what 11 painful years, minus the months you quit,
'swore' to never return, publish your "last article ever', and of course,
come back over and over, for "your readers". /s
One might guess you love Metafied...
As far as the zero point ticket for Terms of Service you are whining about...
You quoted a new thought by Jonathon Turley from one of his many copyrighted
blogs, articles or websites without citation so people who care could read the
rest of his article, YOU deprived YOUR READERS the opportunity of reading
the rest of Turley's copyrighted thoughts in violation
of the first rule in the Terms of service.
May I quote another member anonymously?
GAME, SET & MATCH
6 years and I didn't quit. Even that you can't get right, but you don't need to right?
As far as the zero point ticket for Terms of Service you are whining about...
It meant a lot to somebody, didn't it?
You quoted a new thought by Jonathon Turley from one of his many copyrighted
blogs, articles or websites without citation so people who care could read the
rest of his article, YOU deprived YOUR READERS the opportunity of reading
the rest of Turley's copyrighted thoughts in violation
of the first rule in the Terms of service.
You always worry about others. I'm not so sure it's they you were worried about.
And it clearly says "SHOULD HAVE." Why not make it MUST HAVE?
Btw, why would citing the rule to someone constitute meta?
It is when it goes from saying what we SHOULD DO to a ticketing offense.
Thank you.
If that is not sufficient then that is a question of moderation and I am not a moderator.
Now you've got it!
That's the hair you're choosing to split?
Vic, if I had written papers in college using so much as a single sentence of somebody else's work without making it clear that it was somebody else's work, I'd have faced disciplinary action, up to expulsion. Why? Because plagiarism is illegal and dishonest. The same applied in high school, with a lighter penalty; I'd have failed the assignment. So it should be common knowledge that you don't use somebody else's words, which are their intellectual property, without giving them credit for it. And yet some here have used other's words either as articles or comments without giving any indication that those words were generated by someone other than the NTer posting them.
Because it's an indirect way of complaining about the rules.
So what is the penalty for it here on NT?
Because it's an indirect way of complaining about the rules.
In some cases it's a complaint about lack of consistency.
Well, I've locked articles or given a ToS for plagiarism. Of course, when I've explained why I was locking the article, my comment was flagged.
IMO, repeated plagiarism should result in suspension or banning, as it risks the integrity and possibly the existence of the site. But that's not my call.
There is no lack of consistency with regards to requiring other's intellectual property rights to be acknowledged. It has always been the rule here. Some have been inconsistent in following it, though, and have resented having that pointed out.
Maybe it should. I'd rather see people banished than have random flagging with made up, on the fly penalties.
But that's not my call.
All I'm asking is what is the penalty?
Ask the RA. I don't set the penalties. Many violations here have no penalty beyond deletion.
Thank you Sandy.
That's all I want.
I found is as original content from an article from Turley's blog.
Is it Okay Now to Say There is a Thin Record on Jackson’s Judicial Philosophy? – JONATHAN TURLEY
Turley's tweet is a truncation of the full statement he made in the article.
IMHO, merely posting who said it isn't a citation per the ToS or CoC.
I'll bet.
I think people should be able to reference Jonathan Turley without providing a link. Otherwise most comments here will have to contain links as they refer to something that someone in the news said or did. People who want "proof" that Jonathan Turley said something or other can look it up for themselves if they have doubts.
Are we just going to have more and more moderation?
If a member copies and pastes something into a comment or seed then there should be a link.
If they are just talking about Jonathan Turley and what he said without a copy and paste, there should be no need for a link.
yeah, you did. perhaps you'd like me to provide the text of that article here to refresh your memory. naturally, I'll properly cite the author in the spirit of this discussion.
Vic,
I will make the change to must have, but come on, no one has ever disputed that.
Here, not an issue since this is all meta. In an seed or article, it just becomes a distraction to the discussion.
I've replied to this Vic. If it is done occasionally, or by mistake, it will carry no points. But if you are a regular offender then it will, depending on how many times you are an offender.
This isn't something that Turley said or did John. Turley WROTE it. Vic didn't hear it on the radio or TV, he READ it.
Vic posted the comment at:
That is exactly what Vic did.
Gee Vic, it looks like you've answered your 'how did you get the rules changed' question you asked me the other day.
Once that change is made, I'll take it from there.
I believe I treated you with respect. In that spirit I will end it on that note.
Again, thank you for taking the time.
I will feel confident in what you say when I see how "occasionally" is determined by these wonderful mods. People who never get ticketed will never get points.
We shall see.
Thanks again.
Well there shouldn't be any 'occasionally' for you or anyone who has read this META. It's been made clear. No need to repeat the violations since you've been warned.
There have indeed been several members who have pasted the words of others without proper citation (and thus presented the words of others as their own).
That is a different issue. But if the 500 word article in a comment was not properly cited then it is two issues in one comment.
People were claiming entire articles as their own? I've never heard that. I only know of two examples. One went one way and the other went a completely different way.
That is a different issue.
That is the only one I know of. There were two different rulings and someone brought it to my attention.
Here we go again. I write something and you substitute my words for your own.
I wrote:
Try again.
Thanks TiG, but I'm not really interested in that.
People have posted articles without citing the sources of those articles, and posted comments containing quotes from others without indicating that they were not the poster's original thoughts, yes.
Shingles doesn't care.
I'm like you in that regard.
Then, that is a clear violation. People who add by Jonathan Turley, not so much.
Ah, but some people haven't always added that, until they've been caught quoting Turley's comments without indicating that those comments were anybody's but their own.
Not in the case I cited - You know, the one that generated that personal attack.
Nothing was added to that.
I have no idea what quote you're talking about, Vic. I only know that some comments and articles have been found, via Google search, to be not the original thoughts of the NTer posting them, but of others.
I'm referring to Post 6.2.4. Nothing was added to that later. It never should have been ticketed. That's very simple.
The other thing you don't know is what generated all of this. That was the day someone deliberately refused to provide a link to a sentence taken from an article - an article I had read the day before. I guess you could say she was embarrassed.
Then that person should have been penalized, too, if it was true. Flag plagiarism when you see it, and let the mods and RA handle it.
I'll take your advice from now on. I think you are trying to do the right thing.
It's a great ad campaign here in Texas.
Several ads actually.
We tend to give out tickets when we warn people and they ignore the mods... and that is for any kind of infraction.
This is true and that is because some people mind when other members do it in their articles and complain to us, while other members don't mind. So, given my clarification above, it might still look like sometimes people are getting their comments removed some of the time since we will be only responding to the writer/seeder.
I will be adding the below to this:
*Once a writer/seeder has accepted the use of a "full posting" in the article, then they must accept it from all, and not just from people they agree with.
The key thing I agree with is warning people. If simply saying by Jonathan Turley is not enough "we" should be warned before being ticketed.
People were told they couldn't post an entire 500 word article as part of a comment.
That I didn't know.
Thank you for taking the time to go through it all.
Just to clarify, will we need a citation to quote politicians we heard make statements with our own ears and is a well known word or statement that could only be attributed to one person like Trumps "covfefe" or "grab 'em by the pussy" or "Russia, if you're listening", Representative Joe Wilson's "You Lie!" or even for the conservatives new grade-school taunt "Let's go Brandon!" which someone must have said but I've never seen any attribution. I try and always use a citation if it's something recent that quotes a whole sentence, paragraph or more but it seems silly to need to attribute often repeated well know or infamous phrases used by politicians and others.
My friend, this is for copyrighted material (purposes). Even if the quote or article is paraphrased. Recognition is needed.
If an article, book, is "open sourced" it is okay. If it is copyrighted but allowed usage by groups, committees, or individuals by an author for "non-commercial purposes" those portions for which permission is granted is okay.
However, as usual, somebody may ask where I derived a quote, data, or other such thing and so, a supplied link (ahead of time or on remembrance) comes into play. Speaking for myself.
doubtful.
just like Reagan's quote:
DP, this Reagan quote
is not an example of "citation" but of giving " credit " to the author/speaker!
(I am not suggesting you do not know this already, nevertheless .)
Dictionary
...but of juvenile conservative retaliation thus the need for 24pt text.
Truly amazing how anyone can confuse 'retaliation" with a definition, but oh, well, I guess that is what we have to expect.
I was only talking about how you formatted the Reagan expression in @7.2. (The only mention of Reagan was in a 'passing' way.)
I am sorry "just like Reagan's quote:" wasn't explicit enough for your tastes.
The 'glancing' credit is sufficient enough however, to give a reader a direction to go look for oneself for the material. Now then, I want to be careful here as to not derail (less/dilute) what Perrie is focusing on as a whole: Proper citation of copyrighted materials.
Therefore, I will stop at this point with this line of discussion.
Glancing?
You have GOT to be kidding me here.
It states EXPLICITLY that it is a Reagan quote!
SMH
That happened at a "baby Nascar" race. The winner's name was Brandon and when the reporter went up to interview him the crowd was chanting "fuck Joe Biden", so instead of giving press to that she stated "hey they are chanting your name, Let's go Brandon".
Is this okay?
Yes.
Thank you.
I thought we always had to cite material we were quoting, so I was confused about the confusion. Since it does not apply to me, I will bow out.
There shouldn't be any confusion, but that won't stop some folks from acting confused.
If I put "four score and seven years ago", as a quote, into a comment I am not going to put a link to the Gettysburg Address next to it. It is absurd.
One of the problems here is that people just dont know when to stop trying to fix things.
Yeah, Perrie specifically covered the point of famous quotes such as that. I doubt anyone has memorized Turley's words.
Once in a blue moon I may forget to put a link in with copy and pasted material. I ALWAYS see my mistake and within a few minutes correct it. Everything that I copy and paste gets a link.
Its not difficult, at all, to do this.
We have to have an R.A. meta article about it?
Not for most but some here clearly struggle with the concept of plagiarism.
i know i often play gerrr iiiiiz , but my problem being, i cant even play gerrr iiiiz myself. When i write something and accidentally erase or lose it. i cannot duplicate what was lost, at any cost. When i do cut n paste, i try and put quotation marks at beginning, but my Apple keyboard has no G or Quotation mark button till replaced, i uess ill just not quote, so dont quote me on that which i cant quote myself , i uess
[deleted]
I occasionally use my own made up sayings, do I have to cite myself? (j/k)
Such citation is accomplished automatically by having your handle and avatar attached to your comment. That also makes it easy for others who want to quote your brilliance to properly give you credit for it, although I'm sure they'd love for everyone to believe it's theirs