Plagiarism and Lack of Citing References on TTB's

[ralis]

This was just brought up on another thread, where posters are cutting, pasting and claiming the content is their own work.

 

I believe there are several posters here that cut and paste, blatantly copy from books, then change a few words to make it appear original.

 

Some here quote liberally without citing proper references.

[Sloppy Zhang]

If you don't mind my asking, what thread had this brought up?

 

If I see large blocks of text in a quote box, I assume it's a quote. If there isn't a direct link, they usually say where it is.

 

In some cases, people might have read something in a book about a certain subject, and are just writing from memory what they remember the book saying. Stuff that I remember from books I usually do that, make a brief reference from where I read what it is, then just say it, but I don't always give a link.

 

Any examples that you have?

[ralis]

If you don't mind my asking, what thread had this brought up?

 

If I see large blocks of text in a quote box, I assume it's a quote. If there isn't a direct link, they usually say where it is.

 

In some cases, people might have read something in a book about a certain subject, and are just writing from memory what they remember the book saying. Stuff that I remember from books I usually do that, make a brief reference from where I read what it is, then just say it, but I don't always give a link.

 

Any examples that you have?

 

I forgot to post the link. The post at the bottom of page 2 is where it is brought up.

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/16290-sacred-text-that-has-not-been-altered-by-man/page__st__16

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

???

 

Actually, who cares if they do that? I don't. This is not for actual publication. Does it really matter???

Edited November 19, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Immortal4life]

The Tao that can be copyrighted, is not the true Tao.

[Sloppy Zhang]

I forgot to post the link. The post at the bottom of page 2 is where it is brought up.

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/16290-sacred-text-that-has-not-been-altered-by-man/page__st__16

 

Ah, I see. Well, I guess it depends. Ideally a direct quote, the source used, and where exactly in the source the selection came from should be given. But, you know, that can't always happen. Sometimes we don't have the book/website on hand, sometimes we can't even remember where we read it. Usually if that happens I say something like, "I can't remember where I read this, but...." and so on.

 

For an obvious reference like, "it says in the Bible that...." well, that's helpful and unhelpful, because now we know what to look in, but we don't know where!

 

In an academic or professional setting, a direct reference would be required. You can't really just say, "oh it says so in the Bible, really, go read it all for yourself!"

 

But in an internet forum (which can run the gamut from very casual to very formal), I'm inclined to be a little less strict. However, if you are saying something that is a bit more extreme, like, "the Bible says that aliens don't exist!" then, uh, you should probably cite where you're getting that directly.

 

I dunno if that helps. Just my thoughts on it. The more potentially inflammatory the reference, the more citation needed, I'd say.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Sloppy Zhang

[strawdog65]

This is inspiration for my next thread:

 

"Compassion and Lack of Happy Face Emoticons on TTBs"

 

 

 

Rainbow...

 

Awesome idea!

My posts are suspiciously lacking in the happy face department.

But I am smiling as I type this...does that count?

 

Can I just say about the original post...Really?

 

Free flowing discussion...isn't always neat and tidy

with all the appropriate references.

 

Let's all play nice and go with the flow....Be like water.

 

Peaceful thoughts of happyface people.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Rainbow...

 

Awesome idea!

My posts are suspiciously lacking in the happy face department.

But I am smiling as I type this...does that count?

 

Can I just say about the original post...Really?

 

Free flowing discussion...isn't always neat and tidy

with all the appropriate references.

 

Let's all play nice and go with the flow....Be like water.

 

Peaceful thoughts of happyface people.

 

In general I agree that conversation in this type of area is going to be more free flowing, a bit more off the cuff, a bit more anecdotal, and overall more casual.

 

But at the same time, serious subjects get discussed here. References are made to specific texts, specific people, and other very specific things which, if referenced, should easily be able to be verified by anyone.

 

Though I can't really come up with any hard and fast rules, and tend to really just say, "it depends on the situation", there are some things that should be cited. Claims about something which may cause controversy. If you are saying that a specific person said something, or something particular was written in a specific text, you should try as hard as possible to cite it.

 

This way others can ensure that what was said was not taken out of context, we can find out what the authors intentions were behind writing that, etc etc.

[Thunder_Gooch]

This was just brought up on another thread, where posters are cutting, pasting and claiming the content is their own work.

 

I believe there are several posters here that cut and paste, blatantly copy from books, then change a few words to make it appear original.

 

Some here quote liberally without citing proper references.

 

 

I did this earlier but never claimed it was my own, I do not remember the original source I had just copied and pasted for my own notes I keep, sry.

[Vajrahridaya]

I always put quotes around quotes, not always boxes, because then the next person can't reply to that post and have it show up in their reply. Then you have to go back and cut and paste the quote from the boxed in quote from the post you are replying too, so I just put quotes around my big quotes.

 

I am guilty of not always naming sources though. I just quote and put quotes around it if it fits the point I'm trying to make.

[TheTaoBum]

The Tao that can be copyrighted, is not the true Tao.

 

Classic )

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

I don't know about plagiarism, but what I will say is this...

 

...I believe there are several posters here that cut and paste, blatantly copy from books, then change a few words to make it appear original carpet.

 

Some here quote liberally without citing proper references.

 

 

This is inspiration for my next thread:

 

"Compassion and Lack of Happy Face Emoticons on TTBs"

 

 

Finally I've found the 'smiley face' issues thread!

 

I'd like more smiley faces, actually to be exact I'd like more expressive unhappy/negative emotions smiley faces. Isn't there anyone who can knock up a few? For example: envy, disdain, carnal lust and flatulence to name but a few(I'm aware that flatulence is not an emotion, but people around me seem to get very emotional when I do it...so....)

 

Was it not Mantak Chia who said 'those with the heart and minds of a smiley face will enter the kingdom of heaven'?

[Pietro]

The Tao that can be copyrighted, is not the true Tao.

 

No one said not to copy from copyrighted content.

 

Just say the source so people who are interested can go deeper into that.

 

I read this somewhere.

[goldisheavy]

Who is plagiarizing? I like to quote various sources at times, but I imagine I credit them every time I quote them. Did I forget to credit something somewhere? If yes, I'd like for it to be pointed out to me directly, without ambiguities and hand waving, and I will correct it.

 

I doubt you were referring to me though. Still, I've read your link ralis and I can't find the guilty party.

 

Also, I believe certain teachings are so special and sacred that they belong to all of humanity and need not be credited when quoted. Furthermore, while I take a somewhat negative position on book copying considering how relatively inexpensive most books are, I encourage people to copy certain special and sacred teachings regardless of legal issues and especially if you are poor. Some teachings no man has a right to claim ownership of. Some things belong to all of humanity and the wisest and most excellent spiritual teachings are in that category.

 

And yet from what you describe ralis, I doubt the plagiarized material falls into the category I refer to in the above paragraph.

Edited November 21, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Sloppy Zhang]

Who is plagiarizing? I like to quote various sources at times, but I imagine I credit them every time I quote them. Did I forget to credit something somewhere? If yes, I'd like for it to be pointed out to me directly, without ambiguities and hand waving, and I will correct it.

 

I doubt you were referring to me though. Still, I've read your link ralis and I can't find the guilty party.

 

Also, I believe certain teachings are so special and sacred that they belong to all of humanity and need not be credited when quoted. Furthermore, while I take a somewhat negative position on book copying considering how relatively inexpensive most books are, I encourage people to copy certain special and sacred teachings regardless of legal issues and especially if you are poor. Some teachings no man has a right to claim ownership of. Some things belong to all of humanity and the wisest and most excellent spiritual teachings are in that category.

 

And yet from what you describe ralis, I doubt the plagiarized material falls into the category I refer to in the above paragraph.

 

I think this thread is in response to thelearner pointing out that shaolin has said that certain texts say a certain thing when, in fact, they do not. So in referencing a well respected text, it initially seems to give credibility to his argument, but in actuality, when someone investigates the source, it doesn't support the position at all.

 

And since we aren't really big on enforcing the citing of sources, people can come in and say pretty much whatever they want about anything, and the only way we can verify it is if someone else is familiar with the thing they are talking about.

[thelerner]

This is inspiration for my next thread:

 

"Compassion and Lack of Happy Face Emoticons on TTBs"

 

 

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

"All is emptiness, including between ralis' ears". ²

"You are a nin-com-poop par excellence".³

 

2, 3. Vajrahridaya, Ralis, et al., The Tao Bums Forum, Op.cit., 2009-2010, various postings, personal correspondence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 21, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[goldisheavy]

I think this thread is in response to thelearner pointing out that shaolin has said that certain texts say a certain thing when, in fact, they do not. So in referencing a well respected text, it initially seems to give credibility to his argument, but in actuality, when someone investigates the source, it doesn't support the position at all.

 

This sounds like like a lie to me. I checked thelearner's post.

 

Come here: http://www.quranexplorer.com/Quran/Default.aspx

 

Then check all the citations. Quran Explorer has many translations and they are all excellent, so there is no way to weasel out of it by invoking Arabic obscurantism.

 

Punch in the first reference thelearner provides. Open it in the Quran Explorer. Then cycle through all the English translations. The Quran is clearly talking about the Sun running, no doubt about it. Do this for the rest of the references.

 

So thelearner was bang on and everyone who tries to smear him is a liar and a slanderer.

 

I can't stand lies.

Edited November 22, 2010 by goldisheavy