|
|
|
486
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 25/03/2008 00:39:47
Posts: 1,024,
Visits: 22,417
|
|
| 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Rig 1: Asrock Dual-Vsta, C2d E4300, 2x512mb Corsair PC2-6400, X1950Pro
Rig 2: Asrock Dual-Vsta, C2d E6300, 2x512mb pc2700, 6600GT (The Dave Special)
Rig 3: Chaintec 7AJA, Duron 1000, 512mb pc133, Gf2 Mx100/200
Dear Starfleet, hate you, hate the Federation, taking Voyager. - Janeway
|
|
|
|
|
486
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 00:13:02
Posts: 828,
Visits: 4,971
|
|
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
________________________________________________________________________________________ Rig 1: Quad Q6600. ASRock 4Core1333-FullHD. OCZ 4GB DDR2 PC2-6400 Gold GX XTC. 2 X Seagate Barracuda, 250GB, 16MB Cache. Hyper R 400W. Window XP Home. SP3 Rig 2: AMD Athlon 64 X 2,4200. ASUS A8V-VM SE. 1GB 400DDR. Hitachi Deskstar 120GB. Antec Neo HE 430W. Ubuntu 7.10.
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 27/04/2007 19:59:02
Posts: 1,900,
Visits: 1,336
|
|
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.
Time flies like an arrow.....Fruit flies like a banana!! 
'E' is for Ethernet. Used for catching Etherbunnies, Etherfish or Etherbutterflies.
 
No wonder there`s so much poop on my PC these days.
|
|
|
|
|
Penryn QX9650 @ 5GHz
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 01:38:30
Posts: 10,078,
Visits: 12,867
|
|
...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.
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.
Classic PCs
Original IBM PC (4.77MHz 8088, 256KB RAM, monochrome) · Original IBM PC XT (4.77MHz 8088, 512KB, 10MB HDD, monochrome) · Original Compaq Deskpro (7.14MHz 8086, 640KB, 20MB HDD, CGA graphics)
Home Computers
Commodore VIC-20 · C64 original · C64 Terminator edition · C16 · Amiga 500 · Amiga 600 · Amiga 600 HD · Amiga 1200 Acorn Electron · A3010 (Archimedes) · A4000 (Archimedes) Others Sinclair ZX Spectrum 48K · Dragon 32
Consoles
Nintendo Wii · GameCube purple (x 2) · GameCube black · N64 black (x 2) · N64 clear blue · SNES (x 2) · NES (x 2) · DS silver (x 3) · GBA SP silver · GBA purple · GBA clear · Game Boy Color clear · Game Boy Sega Dreamcast x 3 · Saturn · Mega Drive II · Mega Drive · Master System Atari 10-in-1 · Jaguar (x 2) · 7800 · 2600 wood-grain Microsoft Xbox 360 · Xbox Others Mattel Intellivision · MB Vectrex · GoldStar 3DO · Sony PlayStation (original)
|
|
|
|
|
286
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 00:55:40
Posts: 425,
Visits: 1,000
|
|
| 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
Rig # 965467 Summary: Stuff that's not as impressive as Rigs # 1-965466
|
|
|
|