plagiarism

Started by roger, January 05, 2010, 03:37:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

roger

We should really acknowledge that the grammar part of the Pocket Guide was lifted word-for-word from Wikipedia, with only a couple superficial changes (some of which are wrong). I mean, Wikipedia got their info from elsewhere too, but not the actual wording, and they give credit to their sources. It's just not cool to imply that the Guide was written by someone here.

txum tukru

unless its there, it shuld be in small writing in the corner or something, but this change isn't big enough for a new version.
pesu nga?          "who are you?"
Oe lu toktor.       "the Doctor!"
pesu?                "who?"
nì'aw, toktor.       "just, the Doctor!"

roger

No, but the green box on the welcome page presenting it could say something: Pocket Guide (grammar from Wikipedia, vocab from Survival Guide). That could be done in a few minutes without the bother of recreating the pdf (though really, that would only take a few minutes itself).

txum tukru

and everybody would have to download it because of few lines on the front, wait till a major update, and then this suggestion will be included.
pesu nga?          "who are you?"
Oe lu toktor.       "the Doctor!"
pesu?                "who?"
nì'aw, toktor.       "just, the Doctor!"

roger

#4
Adding a brief online acknowledgement to the welcome page (say, in that green box) wouldn't require anyone to redownload the actual pdf.

txum tukru

what do you mean? that everybody goes and edits their pdf? i would but some people wouldn't know how to.
pesu nga?          "who are you?"
Oe lu toktor.       "the Doctor!"
pesu?                "who?"
nì'aw, toktor.       "just, the Doctor!"

roger

#6
I'm not talking about the pdf, I'm talking about the web page:  the welcome page to this site that presents the pdf. There's a green box there that says,

  Na'vi Pocket Guide (v.2)
  Grammar, structure & Vocab.
  Compiled by Karyu Amawey

That wording is what I'm suggesting might be changed. Maybe,

   Na'vi Pocket Guide (v.2)
   Grammar from Wikipedia
   Vocab from Activist Survival Guide
   Compiled by Karyu Amawey

Something like that. At least until the next update.

txum tukru

now you make scene!

yes i agree, there should be some sort of reference, even if it's in small text at the bottom with a * marking it!
pesu nga?          "who are you?"
Oe lu toktor.       "the Doctor!"
pesu?                "who?"
nì'aw, toktor.       "just, the Doctor!"

Fya'o Tskoyä

doooood holy craaaaaap.. this is a stupid argumeeeeeent

oh noooooes

txum tukru

agreed, stupid argument  ::) at least we know he means the homepage and not the pdf :)
pesu nga?          "who are you?"
Oe lu toktor.       "the Doctor!"
pesu?                "who?"
nì'aw, toktor.       "just, the Doctor!"

Night Raider

Well, the author of Pocket Guide doesn't state its "written by" him, instead he states that it is "compiled by" him which is entirely correct.

And Wikipedia article is actually a compilation itself. So I son't see where plagiarism here takes place.
Is this right? I just write whatever in the signature box?

Taronyu

#11
From the now deleted extra-thread:
Quote from: roger
Response:

Learn Na'vi presents the Pocket Guide as a product of this community. It's not.

The Wikipedia article was written. It isn't simply lifted from someone else's postings the way the Pocket Guide was. There's a world of difference between writing up an article on data you compile, which is what journalists do, and "compiling" something by copying it. The latter, when not acknowledged, is plagiarism, and can actually get you into legal trouble (though probably not with Wikipedia).

Sorry Etienne, I don't think that this is going nowhere.

This is a very serious issue that we, as a user group and fanbase, need to address. And before it becomes an actual issue. Look at Klingon for a good example of how it can become one.

Wikipedia is open-source and editable and all that, but we still need to say that we get information from it. A small line would certainly be enough. This would also lend credibility to the guide, as Frommer himself somewhat validated the wikipedia page.

Can we please edit that page?

Finally, there are other documents that we have that do not source correctly. Granted, the level of calibre of many of them are in question: do Skxawng and I need to source our worksheets, for instance? No, I think not.

But the level of download of some documents, in particular the pocket guide, but also the Compendium, my dictionary, the glossary - we need to source these, or put a small page on the site saying where we have gotten all of our information from, as the source-pool right now is very small.

Do I hear you right, roger?

Quote from: night riderAnd Wikipedia article is actually a compilation itself. So I son't see where plagiarism here takes place.

It takes place when we don't say that we got it from Wikipedia.

Night Raider

#12
Quote from: Taronyu
It takes place when we don't say that we got it from Wikipedia.

I agree, but still, the Wikipedia article got it from the official source (Frommer in our case). So we should maybe credit him? Just a theory, but yes, a line or 2 about the author in the Pocket Guide would be nice.

[Offtopic]
Also, the mods need to stop locking and moving threads without completely justifying their deeds. It creates a very bad impression about the portal's administration.
[/Offtopic]
Is this right? I just write whatever in the signature box?

Ftiafpi

As an engineer I am a firm believer that ALL things should be sourced, if able to, no matter what/where you got it from. It's so easy and simple to do and not only helps prevent headaches and lawsuits and the like but also makes your document a more accurate and valuable resource since you can verify the information by returning to the sources.

As far as the pocket guide, I think that thing is in desperate need of revision and this should be one of the items.

Taronyu

Quote from: Night Raider on January 05, 2010, 01:52:37 PM
Quote from: Taronyu
It takes place when we don't say that we got it from Wikipedia.

I agree, but still, the Wikipedia article got it from the official source (Frommer in our case). So we should maybe credit him? Just a theory, but yes, a line or 2 about the author in the Pocket Guide would be nice.

[Offtopic]
Also, the mods need to stop locking and moving threads without completely justifying their deeds. It creates a very bad impression about the portal's administration.
[/Offtopic]

Perhaps we should ultimately credit Frommer. That might be a good idea.

As for modship: pardon my unlocking. I'm a relatively new mod. We all are, to this forum, for that matter.

Night Raider

Quote from: Taronyu on January 05, 2010, 02:27:47 PM
As for modship: pardon my unlocking. I'm a relatively new mod. We all are, to this forum, for that matter.

I was not refrring to you. This was closed yesterday with abolutely no explation as to why.
Is this right? I just write whatever in the signature box?

Tìng Eywatikìte'e

Quote from: Night Raider on January 05, 2010, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Taronyu on January 05, 2010, 02:27:47 PM
As for modship: pardon my unlocking. I'm a relatively new mod. We all are, to this forum, for that matter.

I was not refrring to you. This was closed yesterday with abolutely no explation as to why.

I think it was closed because it started out as people just bantering at each other with out putting much thought into it. People were just throwing some insults at each other, it was reopened as a legitimate concern.

That being said, it would hurt to cite wikipedia, but I don't really see it as plagiarism. No one claimed it as their own and in the end all credit goes back to Frommer. For all we know he is the mysterious wikipedia author!
Oeri lu Eywayä 'eveng


Night Raider

Quote from: Tìng Eywatikìte'e on January 05, 2010, 02:38:25 PM
Quote from: Night Raider on January 05, 2010, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Taronyu on January 05, 2010, 02:27:47 PM
As for modship: pardon my unlocking. I'm a relatively new mod. We all are, to this forum, for that matter.

I was not refrring to you. This was closed yesterday with abolutely no explation as to why.

I think it was closed because it started out as people just bantering at each other with out putting much thought into it. People were just throwing some insults at each other, it was reopened as a legitimate concern.

That being said, it would hurt to cite wikipedia, but I don't really see it as plagiarism. No one claimed it as their own and in the end all credit goes back to Frommer. For all we know he is the mysterious wikipedia author!

I don't see any insults being thrown around in this topic. I think right now we should end this discussion though... everyone feels like credit should be given, so no need to discuss more. We are risking the thread going too much into offtopic.
Is this right? I just write whatever in the signature box?

Ftiafpi


Payoang

Re-Locking.

The website has a disclaimer at the bottom that points directly to Dr. Frommer, citing him as the main source. A link to Language Log is provided. Wikipedia is not a reliable reference, due to its nature--everyone can contribute, whether they claim to know something as fact, or guesstimate / derive. If you use Wikipedia as a source, you should credit them. The word "plagiarism" does not apply. Furthermore, let me direct your attention to Wikipedia's terms for Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.