Micro Mart Forum / Messages To The Editor / Micro Mart Forums / Writing Into The Magazine / Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939) / Latest Posts

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

cocorico — Thu, 24 May 2007 15:25:09 GMT

There is no problem with using the work of other people, whether this is from an online, or printed source.

There is generally a tiered level of originality regarding submitted or printed material:

1. Completely of the writers own composition, opinion, or derived from a writers own isolated research.

2. Composed by a writer, but clearly influenced by previously stated work or sources.

3. Paraphrasing of other work[s] using a writers own words.

4. Vermatim re-quoting of another author's text.

It's all fine as long as you indicate sources in a formal way. The generally accepted form for academic work, and factually printed matter, is known as the Harvard Protocol.

All, except no.1 should credit individual authors or contributors. You start by putting [1] at the end of the appropriate section, then [2], [3], and so on right through the text. At the end, you list the credits. no 4. should be put in parenthesis to indicate that it is a verbatim quote [word for word, i.e. cut and paste].

Books should be of the format 'Title' 'Author' 'Publisher' 'Publication Date' 'ISBN number'

Web based material should be of the format 'URL' 'Author' 'publication date[if known]' 'date when accessed'

If these rules are not complied with, and the author has used material in a publication or submission which is proposed as their own work, then they are guilty of plagiarism.

I can understand that in a weekly commercial publication, this might be difficult to comply with, simply, because the text required to support the plagiarism transparency model adds publication space, which is at a cost.

But I would encourage MM management to look at the issue, and the revenue model in the interests of providing added value to customers.

Additionally, let me say, that there is a danger in taking web based contact as 'fact' since material published on the internet doesn't undergo the same level of quality control scrutiny as compared with printed works published by reputable and established publishing companies with a reputation to protect.

There is therefore an additional responsiblity on writers to independently validate web sources, in a way that might not be necessary for formally published matter, to establish it is true and correct. The writers own reputation stands over the support material they use. It isn't sufficient to say 'look this is where I got this from'

Thanks John

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

Jason — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:48:57 GMT

[quote]...so I've always chopped and changed it and put it into my own words. Doing this also encourages you to research further to look for alternative terms and explanations.[/quote]

Which is exactly what every writer in the world does. I personally don't think it much matters whether the raw information is obtained online or from a book. Either way the writer needs to assimilate what's being read, discard what's not relevant, and consolidate what *is* relevant into a piece of original work. The only problem comes when someone takes something wholesale and makes no changes, but that can be spotted a mile off.

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

Sticky Mick — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:42:30 GMT

Hmmmm. I must admit I've been guilty of the "copy & paste" in the past.

But I've always been aware of this copyright malarky, so I've always chopped and changed it and put it into my own words. Doing this also encourages you to research further to look for alternative terms and explanations.

I think where a problem would arise is when all the kids hand in their homework and every childs piece matches word for word. Although they are encouraged to go on the net and research they should also be encouraged to try and use their own words and name their sources for further reference.

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

Fuzzy-Felt Bloke — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:15:30 GMT

I have not yet read the article therefore, I can not comment on the contents. I work within a large educational institution and I must say that I hate the Internet for a number of reasons.

The common (a very generalisation I know) practice among students is to take the easy way out, which is the option of copy and paste. Unfortunately it does not develop knowledge or learning skills, at lest with text books you have to read them to find the information, and then write it down, so some information is retained. Although this is not a main problem as copy & paste can easily be spotted (most of the time). The main problem is that copy & paste does not allow the student to evaluate conflicting (source) information to form or develop an argument and present it in a meaning full way.

I am also alarmed at the rate academic libraries (I can not comment on public libraries) are turning towards e-journals and other on line information sources, and unsubscribing to the traditional journals as a way to reduce costs £££.
Most of these online information sources are not peer assessed, so therefore in most cases can not be used for scientific research. I should add that some of my colleagues disagree with me. At one time, I could read the ‘New Scientist’ in my library until the subscription was changed to online only, I have never read it since, as I hate reading from a screen.

Going off topic now, so I had better shut up and stop ranting.

Tom

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

wasbit — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:07:54 GMT

Sorry Jason, I thought it was a rhetorical comment.

Having read the article today (no delivery yesterday due to snow) I know how Leo feels.

I have sent a note to my daughter's school stating that I will not allow the use of a printer (n.b. not the pc - but that's another subject) for homework except for the odd exception. Thus the majority of the homework gets written out longhand and (hopefully) sinks in.

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

Jason — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:02:20 GMT

[quote]The "Copy and paste" comment went straight over the top I see[/quote]

Clearly so did my response to it five posts above, my friend. :)

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

wasbit — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:13:49 GMT

It's a saying used in country areas Keith, just doesn't come across well in print.

The "Copy and paste" comment went straight over the top I see :)

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

keith — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:22:01 GMT

something that struck me about the article was when Leo said that as a kid he knew that limstone had been invented.... erm ... how do you invent a natural stone that is quarried out of the ground? Uses for the quarried stone can be invented but that isn't what he said.

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

boywander — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:22:46 GMT

Agree, it's better (and kind of easier) to look through it and put it in your own words in the first place, but facts are facts whoever writes them.

(Missed this week, btw, just going on this thread)

Now... when was the last time anyone else went to a library? :P

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

trike — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 03:06:56 GMT

Yes using a book is a lost art.Cut and paste is all well and good but reading the article and then using the skill to precis it would teach the child a whole lot more about the english language.
and she could still type it into her word processor and print it off.

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

Jason — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:25:25 GMT

Pedantic or not, you're quite right.

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

wasbit — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:22:15 GMT

I suppose that I will be called pedantic for saying that it will normally be 'Copy & paste', not 'Cut & paste'. Cut moves it from one place to another, but copy leaves the original intact.

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

Jason — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:44:39 GMT

[quote]using websites to garner information is OK. Leo teaching her how to cut and paste, isn't. As long as you read the info at least once something will stick.[/quote]

I disagree. Leo made a point of saying he showed his daughter how to knock the pasted content into the required shape -- that is, cutting out the stuff that wasn't needed, whittling it down. In order to do that, you've got to read it. Probably several times.

RE: Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

FreakShow! — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:38:57 GMT

Copying from one source is plagiorism, copying from many sources is research ;)

using websites to garner information is OK. Leo teaching her how to cut and paste, isn't. As long as you read the info at least once something will stick.

Leo's Logging Off (Issue 939)

madmacs — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:42:55 GMT

While I can see your point about plagiarism in the use of the net I can still remember my school days (just about). When given a research project I had to go to the library, locate an appropriate book and research my subject. In that era most people had a public library whch was open till early evening and Saturday morning. Nowadays due to financial restraints my local library is poorly stocked and opens three days a week for half a day. The internet provides us with 24/7 coverage of every possible subject much simplifying research. In all fairness except perhaps in the case of literature where it is all to easy to copy someone else's work I don't see a lot of difference in looking up information on the web and in a book. After all it was easy enough to just copy the info from a book even if you couldn't cut and paste it. Not that I ever did, trust me. Yes things have changed but I think there are at least as many positives as negatives.