tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post7461632923317758329..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: A pox on hat-tippingEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14227114888123718972012-03-01T18:56:46.654-05:002012-03-01T18:56:46.654-05:00Belette and Unknown might be talking about differe...Belette and Unknown might be talking about different things. Belette says if your idea even partially starts with someone else, at least give a hat tip, or in B's case, a ref. Unknown is talking about my position, which is if the person who inspired me is two levels back, just cite direct to that person and skip the middleman.<br /><br />I should clarify there's nothing wrong with hat tips, and there's something good if you want to provide a link/tip/via/ref because you recommend the post although you have nothing special to add to it.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12356713196294386982012-03-01T15:02:09.400-05:002012-03-01T15:02:09.400-05:00"It" has an antecedent; Belette agrees w..."It" has an antecedent; Belette agrees with the blogger linked in the original post:<br /><br />"... ideas and arguments .... should be cited. If I come up with a theory ... and I explain it clearly and carefully, then someone else taking my work and presenting it as their own thinking and reasoning is plagiarism."<br /><br />"Unknown" either hasn't read the cited post or has misunderstood it.<br /><br />Q.E.D.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42781320337207959772012-03-01T11:49:09.200-05:002012-03-01T11:49:09.200-05:00It isn't plagarism.
Ripping off the original ...It isn't plagarism.<br /><br />Ripping off the original source without credit would be plagarism.<br /><br />Demanding that someone credit you just for finding links is narcissm.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15793874284872715747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23362326564644733462012-03-01T09:03:33.967-05:002012-03-01T09:03:33.967-05:00I'd agree with the guy you did link to above, ...I'd agree with the guy you did link to above, who wrote:<br />-----quote<br />I’m a little disappointed that Kevin <a href="http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/journalisms-unhealthy-obsession-creditmongering" rel="nofollow">said this</a>:<br /><br />Ideas don’t belong to anyone, and readers don’t much care where the inspiration for a story came from. Once it’s out there, it’s out there.<br />-----end quote<br /><br />Seems completely backasswards to me. That's the data-mining approach to other people's work. It's lazy, apt to hide a misread or misquote, could as well be done by a 'bot pushing PR talking points.<br /><br />Attribution is a chore. But it distinguishes you from the "tubes" who transport without either digesting or improving ideas.<br /><br />Links are part of the tool, but also reveal some thinking (or the lack of it). When it's just the same old shit under new userids, I always suspect the bot machine out there shuffling through its series of identities, posting as Andy A., Bill B. or Chuck C.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28706419114143177322012-03-01T06:47:01.306-05:002012-03-01T06:47:01.306-05:00I do it. It feels like credit where its due; effec...I do it. It feels like credit where its due; effectively, citing someone else's work. Not doing so is like plagiarism. You only need to do it to one level, though.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87295660796975124092012-03-01T04:31:27.186-05:002012-03-01T04:31:27.186-05:00"Sheeplenish"? New one on me. I prefer ..."Sheeplenish"? New one on me. I prefer "ovinity".Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.com