AmericanDreamer
01-12-2008, 11:28 AM
TO LINK OR NOT TO LINK, THAT IS THE QUESTION.
(Please take notice how member quotes have a link associated for verification)
There seems to have been an issue regarding a post I wrote that did not include links in order to verify some of the quoted definitions. Take a moment to read post #7 if you like:
http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130295#pid130295
Of course, it was brought this to my attention, and the person insinuated that I was a plagiarist, and that what I wrote in my post must be palgiarism since I did not include a link. With her statement I new that there was some confusion that should be cleared up.
Even though the information I referred to was in within "quotation marks", it may not have been clear enough for her. But rather than play "follow the leader" and add the links, I decided to state the following in my post:
On Edit: The "quotes" are in place in order to inform readers that I have quoted a source. In this case, I don't think a link is necessary to validate the source because the definition is obvious. That is why god created quotation marks. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130295#pid130295
I will repeat the definition of what "quotation marks" are:
"...a pair of punctuation marks used primarily to mark the beginning and end of a passage attributed to another and repeated word for word..."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quotation%20mark
That is EXACTLY what I did in my post. So how can I be taking credit for someone elses work?
IT'S NOT PLAGIARIZING, but that's how some interpret it.
In my opinion, that's good enough for me. After all, I am not writing an essay, and the information I was providing seemed like general knowledge, I also stated in my post that my use of quotation marks was used in order to show that I have quoted a source. Pretty simple...so I thought.
I was then informed by a forum administrator that:
Posting ANYTHING that you didn't write and not giving a source is generally frowned upon.. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130335#pid130335
AND
...You give sources for a couple reasons. First, you need to give credit to the author, otherwise it's stealing. Second, you do so so others know the source. Your source could be the bbc, or it could be hitler.org. Which one you use is going to play a big role in deciding the quotes credibility and, if in doubt, the reader can look into it. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130413#pid130413
Let me get this right. I need to mention the author of the quote, or else it's stealing, and I need to let others know the source of the quote in order to help people decide if it's true. BUT if I don't provide a link to the source of the quote, it won't be credible. A bit confusing. Where are all these rules, or are they made up as we go along??
Question and Answer: When a member quotes another member in a post, do they also include a link to the other member's origional post so that the readers can verify the accuracy of that quote? How do we know if the quote is "credible"? We cannot verify it, unless we research it on our own. The answer is no.
Let's look at a hypothetical example:
You keep on calling me names. I'll prove it!
You are an idiot. You are a bitch. You are a loser.
You see, I'm being called names all the time. Boo hoo. I'm telling a moderator...wha, wha, wha.
The issue here is that Member#1 is quoting Member#2 in order to make the point that Member#2 is picking on them. At face value, one would assume that Member#2 actually said these things, correct? It is assumed that this is so because Member#1 is quoting Member#2. But where is the link that verifies what Member#2 said? How can I verify that Member#2 actually said those things? More important, where is the proof that Member#1 is using a credible source. Without a link it is difficult, so one must trust that Member#1 is being truthful regarding what Member#2 has said. I don't know about you, but I am not the trusting type. I need the link to verify. Simple. The solution is to include links to the quotes like I have in this post. Want to verify if a member said something, click on the link and you go directly to the horses mouth.
In other words, why is it required to provide a link in order to believe what is said? Some say it's a courtesty, others say it's the thing to do. Some members may frown upon it if you don't provide a link. Yet if you don't provide a link, the following may happen to you:
AmericanDreamer, is that plagiarism or did you write that yourself. If you didn't write it, you're committing plagiarism by posting it without a link to where you got it. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130321#pid130321
Interesting concept. I'm commiting plagiarism by posting the info without a link. Now that's silly. I think it's time to define plagiarism:
"...a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism
Yes I did copy the information from an online source, but being that I put the information within the quotation marks, I have "mark(ed) the beginning and end of a passage attributed to another..." (see "QUOTATION MARKS" above). No real need to go any further, unless someone wants to verify the source. I have already put my readers on notice that this is someone elses work, not mine. In addition, including or excluding a link has NOTHING to do with plagiarizing. So ViolaLee was incorrect in her understanding of what plagiarizing actually means. She was wrong in telling me I plagiarized. No big deal, it is a learning process for all.
Let's assume this is true: "If you didn't write it, you're committing plagiarism if you post it without a link to where you got it." This means that in our hypothetical, Member#1 is commiting plagiarism by NOT posting a link to where Member#2's quote came from? But everyday in this forum we assume that just because one member quotes another member, it is in fact true. Yet, as a courtesy, we require links to all other quotes in the post in order to verify accuracy. If you don't quote your source, there's big trouble! Seems like a double standard.
Lily actually gave the best reason for supplying links with your quotes:
As for the link.........I don't know how it's done on other forums, but here we have a fondness for links. Sometimes it helps to know where some are getting their information from and other times, we like to read what else the article has to say. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130403#pid130403
That is as simple as it can be. No mention of "plagiarism", no worry of "people frowning", no frills way of looking at it. It's the way things are here, and I can respect that reason more than someone attempting to force me into link submission. Here's another one:
If you want to be known as a plagiarist, that's OK with me. It's your call. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130334#pid130334
Wow, doesn't that approach make you want to cooperate? Makes you feel like a frickin' rainbow trout on opening day. Where's the bait? Yup, it must be me...
I hope you enjoyed this read. I have learned that dealing with certain prople in this forum is like being in a dream. Eventually you'll wake up.
And for all those of you who cursed me for ommiting the links in my origional post, here you go:
KKK Reference: http://www.answers.com/topic/ku-klux-klan?cat=biz-fin
White Supremacy Reference: http://www.answers.com/white%20supremacy
So all that confusion because I forgot to add two links to a post that probably nobody read anyway. I hope that all can sleep better tonight knowing that the quotes in question are now credible and accurate.
(Please take notice how member quotes have a link associated for verification)
There seems to have been an issue regarding a post I wrote that did not include links in order to verify some of the quoted definitions. Take a moment to read post #7 if you like:
http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130295#pid130295
Of course, it was brought this to my attention, and the person insinuated that I was a plagiarist, and that what I wrote in my post must be palgiarism since I did not include a link. With her statement I new that there was some confusion that should be cleared up.
Even though the information I referred to was in within "quotation marks", it may not have been clear enough for her. But rather than play "follow the leader" and add the links, I decided to state the following in my post:
On Edit: The "quotes" are in place in order to inform readers that I have quoted a source. In this case, I don't think a link is necessary to validate the source because the definition is obvious. That is why god created quotation marks. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130295#pid130295
I will repeat the definition of what "quotation marks" are:
"...a pair of punctuation marks used primarily to mark the beginning and end of a passage attributed to another and repeated word for word..."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quotation%20mark
That is EXACTLY what I did in my post. So how can I be taking credit for someone elses work?
IT'S NOT PLAGIARIZING, but that's how some interpret it.
In my opinion, that's good enough for me. After all, I am not writing an essay, and the information I was providing seemed like general knowledge, I also stated in my post that my use of quotation marks was used in order to show that I have quoted a source. Pretty simple...so I thought.
I was then informed by a forum administrator that:
Posting ANYTHING that you didn't write and not giving a source is generally frowned upon.. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130335#pid130335
AND
...You give sources for a couple reasons. First, you need to give credit to the author, otherwise it's stealing. Second, you do so so others know the source. Your source could be the bbc, or it could be hitler.org. Which one you use is going to play a big role in deciding the quotes credibility and, if in doubt, the reader can look into it. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130413#pid130413
Let me get this right. I need to mention the author of the quote, or else it's stealing, and I need to let others know the source of the quote in order to help people decide if it's true. BUT if I don't provide a link to the source of the quote, it won't be credible. A bit confusing. Where are all these rules, or are they made up as we go along??
Question and Answer: When a member quotes another member in a post, do they also include a link to the other member's origional post so that the readers can verify the accuracy of that quote? How do we know if the quote is "credible"? We cannot verify it, unless we research it on our own. The answer is no.
Let's look at a hypothetical example:
You keep on calling me names. I'll prove it!
You are an idiot. You are a bitch. You are a loser.
You see, I'm being called names all the time. Boo hoo. I'm telling a moderator...wha, wha, wha.
The issue here is that Member#1 is quoting Member#2 in order to make the point that Member#2 is picking on them. At face value, one would assume that Member#2 actually said these things, correct? It is assumed that this is so because Member#1 is quoting Member#2. But where is the link that verifies what Member#2 said? How can I verify that Member#2 actually said those things? More important, where is the proof that Member#1 is using a credible source. Without a link it is difficult, so one must trust that Member#1 is being truthful regarding what Member#2 has said. I don't know about you, but I am not the trusting type. I need the link to verify. Simple. The solution is to include links to the quotes like I have in this post. Want to verify if a member said something, click on the link and you go directly to the horses mouth.
In other words, why is it required to provide a link in order to believe what is said? Some say it's a courtesty, others say it's the thing to do. Some members may frown upon it if you don't provide a link. Yet if you don't provide a link, the following may happen to you:
AmericanDreamer, is that plagiarism or did you write that yourself. If you didn't write it, you're committing plagiarism by posting it without a link to where you got it. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130321#pid130321
Interesting concept. I'm commiting plagiarism by posting the info without a link. Now that's silly. I think it's time to define plagiarism:
"...a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism
Yes I did copy the information from an online source, but being that I put the information within the quotation marks, I have "mark(ed) the beginning and end of a passage attributed to another..." (see "QUOTATION MARKS" above). No real need to go any further, unless someone wants to verify the source. I have already put my readers on notice that this is someone elses work, not mine. In addition, including or excluding a link has NOTHING to do with plagiarizing. So ViolaLee was incorrect in her understanding of what plagiarizing actually means. She was wrong in telling me I plagiarized. No big deal, it is a learning process for all.
Let's assume this is true: "If you didn't write it, you're committing plagiarism if you post it without a link to where you got it." This means that in our hypothetical, Member#1 is commiting plagiarism by NOT posting a link to where Member#2's quote came from? But everyday in this forum we assume that just because one member quotes another member, it is in fact true. Yet, as a courtesy, we require links to all other quotes in the post in order to verify accuracy. If you don't quote your source, there's big trouble! Seems like a double standard.
Lily actually gave the best reason for supplying links with your quotes:
As for the link.........I don't know how it's done on other forums, but here we have a fondness for links. Sometimes it helps to know where some are getting their information from and other times, we like to read what else the article has to say. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130403#pid130403
That is as simple as it can be. No mention of "plagiarism", no worry of "people frowning", no frills way of looking at it. It's the way things are here, and I can respect that reason more than someone attempting to force me into link submission. Here's another one:
If you want to be known as a plagiarist, that's OK with me. It's your call. http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=10513&pid=130334#pid130334
Wow, doesn't that approach make you want to cooperate? Makes you feel like a frickin' rainbow trout on opening day. Where's the bait? Yup, it must be me...
I hope you enjoyed this read. I have learned that dealing with certain prople in this forum is like being in a dream. Eventually you'll wake up.
And for all those of you who cursed me for ommiting the links in my origional post, here you go:
KKK Reference: http://www.answers.com/topic/ku-klux-klan?cat=biz-fin
White Supremacy Reference: http://www.answers.com/white%20supremacy
So all that confusion because I forgot to add two links to a post that probably nobody read anyway. I hope that all can sleep better tonight knowing that the quotes in question are now credible and accurate.