"Jim C. Hines went to a lot of trouble getting all this data...the least you could do is finish that book you claim you're writing. At least there's His Words - Not Mine..."
...and that's how the post started. Except that there was a DCMA complaint and the whole post got pulled down. But the whole thing is basically here. So there you go.
5 comments:
Y'know, on one level I'm impressed that you actually replicated all of the links and everything when you plagiarized Jim's post.
On another level, that also tells me it wasn't just a cut-and-paste job. It wasn't ignorance.
Boingboing's quote of Jim's post falls well within fair use. Copying the entire thing verbatim - when you could have just linked to it - is unethical.
Alright, slick - you get a 2 part response, since they cleverly limit the number of characters you can post in a single comment. Do they have something about giving thorough explanations to people who miss the point?
Part 1 – Comprehending The Meaning Of Words So You Can Use Them Properly And Not Look Like A Smug Dickbag To Strangers On The Internet
I appreciate your charges of plagiarism, but the key component which is missing is my attempt to represent his work as my own. It’s absolutely not, and I take zero credit for it.
Even before the gigantic blockquote, there’s Jim’s name with a link to acknowledge his work. It’s clearly stated in that first sentence – go and reread it as many times a necessary until you understand that.
Now take a minute and look any other posts over the last week / month / year with text in blockquotes, and you’ll see plenty of links to sources whose information and is being shared. Once again, I’m not taking any credit for those things. Still following along?
When I post art images that I like or feel are worth sharing, the artist name or link goes up with it. You can go look for those too in case you have not already established the pattern here.
Whether they be big red quotes like Boingboing does or drop color backgrounds around the indented paragraphs, I have no concern if my formatting for blockquotes matches with what is popular or commonly used. And I’m certainly not going to do that for your benefit or anyone else who needs the use of a blockquote cleared up for them, especially if you’re missing the parts that name the originators and their links.
Hopefully now that you’re educated on the function of blockquotes and how to properly identify plagiarism is, we can address the motives of my deliberate cutting and pasting. After I like to blockquote a source and link to them, sometimes I’ll provide the entirety of their information for any number and combination of reasons:
• Internet real estate is so cheap (read: free) I can post unlimited information. Five hundred or five thousand words in a post costs only the eyestrain to read it.
• It’s not a link dump – once a week I do a little of that, and this one would hardly rate. Plus I don’t want to daisy chain to one site who blockquoted another that linked to a third site who linked the original. Waste of time.
• The post is worthy of being shown in it’s entirely, not truncated down to three sentences. I’m not editing their work if it merits being shared.
• I don’t run ads and the site generates zero income – nobody redirects to me and I’m not interested upping someone else’s traffic for profit. I gain nothing.
• Whoever bothers to keep up with my site can get the full details in their face at that exact moment instead of linking all over the web. They don’t want to read it, they can scroll onward – but I’m not going to give them a tease and then send them elsewhere to satisfy their curiosity. I’ll give it to then straight away.
Part 2 – I’m Waiting For A Pizza Delivery So I Still Have Some Time To Waste Mocking Your Intensions And Trying To Be Polite While I Demean You
I have to wonder, are you just a little sour because it’s Jim’s credit and info that was cited prominently in the post and not your own? Boingboing got the scoop from you, but I went after Jim’s info as my source material and not yours directly – and Jim’s mention of your contribution and links to you are in there! I can’t figure your little issue out. You’re obviously Googling your name on a regular basis, which would be the primary way to find my obscure blog and post – that’s just sad. It’s even worse if you have some bot or filter searching the web for references to yourself.
I think it’s great you guys nerded out on the data and bothered to spend your time on a subject that pretty much no one gives a shit about, because I actually think it’s interesting. I am willing to gamble that some of my readers might actually agree with me, but even if they don’t I won’t care - it’s more important for me to attempt to expose a wider audience to something than to pander to what I think they’ll like or agree with. Your buddy Cory felt similarly and gave you and Jim exposure, with the bonus of some lit cred behind him. Isn’t it nice to have the opportunity for complete strangers to stumble across your miniscule blog from Nowhere, Ohio! It’s great that you get exposure from a big site like Boingboing, but if you got even the smallest iota of interest from somebody reading the useless blog of a random narcissist (yep, me) are you so wrapped up in your own self-importance that it matters? Be happy that anyone other than your mother or your roommate even cares what you put on the web, let alone pass it along or draw attention to it.
I salute your attempt at being the PC internet police and looking out for yourself and Jim and your time consuming work, but make your stand and defend your prized data from those who are actually trying to take credit for it. It ain’t me brother - not by a longshot. On one hand it’s just as simple as paying more attention to what you’re looking at before you bother to post that comment. Yet on the other, it may not be your poor reading comprehension skills, but rather a severely misguided case of bravado mixed with your over inflated online ego. Maybe it’s something else entirely, but it’s that’s for you to think about because the issue is yours to deal with. And also, breathe!
It's cute how you go to the ad hominem attack to defend ripping off Jim's post.
As I've become more of a content creator myself, I've gotten a lot less friendly about wholesale copying. I've given a failing grade to a student who copied less for a paper, even though they used a citation as well.
I think it's pretty obvious that when a remix-friendly copyfighter like Cory believes it's appropriate to only quote a little bit, you're pretty much in the wrong.
First it’s plagiarism, now I’m ripping it off…this is the crux of your badgering?
I can’t make it any clearer without just saying again that Jim is credited with the material where the material is being presented. It precedes any of the material itself with the link. Still not taking credit for it or calling it my own.
You want to express your opinion (or defer to what you believe Cory would say) about what you feel is appropriate quote lengths, that’s not only supercool, but welcome. That’s what the interweb is for and why I allow comments. But I’m going to be a confrontational jerk if you initiate confrontation and start wagging naughty isms.
If it’s about your feeling on protocols of internet, then simply say “hey, glad you’re sharing the info but our opinion is you shouldn’t reprint it entirely.” Or you’re not glad it’s being shared and you think less should be. If you’re using the same challenging, righteous act with your students, you’re not teaching them anything – you never will. Disagreement and difference of opinion is worthless if you don’t know how to enter into discussion. Next time think if you want to introduce yourself with an open hand or a fist, and see where the results get you.
Post a Comment