Okay everybody lets have a little lesson today. Hopefully we will all use those big brains we all claim to have.
What is Plagiarism ? Good question. A lot of people seem confused on this matter, lets clear things up.
Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “purloining and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,” and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
Note that this definition does not make a distinction whether the work is sourced or not. If the original work of the author is presented in such a way that it is perceived as the copiers/re-bloggers work, it is considered plagiarism under this definition.
**everyone goes silent**
- Taking someone else’s work and claiming it is yours. -
Incorrect, according to your first given definition: you don’t have to claim the work to be yours, you have to represent it as such.
Sagansense is just simply reblogging content that is either yours or not yours. Either way he is crediting the main source. Leaving links, adding content.
Sagansense is not simply reblogging content, he is actively changing the common reblog format. A “via exampletumblr" is not sourcing the post. Tumblr itself using the "via" ‘s in its reblog format. It means there that the exampletumblr was not the original poster, but someone who reblogged it from the original poster.
On every internet forum and on Tumblr a common format for copying and quoting is used. The name of the original writer is on top, while the text is besides a quotation bar. A similar layout is used in print for longer quotes. Changing this format would mean that readers, who are used to this universal representation of quotes, perceive the post differently and can be under the impression that the original poster, is not the original poster, but has gotten its material from somewhere else, without linking to the original author.
I have also seen that Sagansense has removed quotation bars from post I’ve made. Compare this post, to the original post. First of all, Sagansense reblog shows two times “via” at the bottom, how would a reader know which one was the original poster of the content? Second, I used a quotation bar to show that I had not written that paragraph, that bar has been removed. If people see this post on Sagansense, they can only assume those were my (or Sagansense) words.
Even if you didn’t even write the post he is still crediting the source of the post to YOU. And people are mad because their name doesn’t appear at the top? Half the time the content we are pushing is written by a science journalist from science.org or space.com so why is everybody complaining?
Changing the format for reblogs is annoying, but here lies my real problem. There are a number of science tumblrs that push articles from websites like this. There are broadly two ways to do this:
- copy the first few paragraphs, and end with an “read more” link. Often the copied paragraphs are next to a quotation bar.
- Copy the whole article and put the original article under the link. Often no quotation bar is used.
The first method makes it clear that the content is copied, it actively encourages the reader to visit the original website. This is especially important for websites like space.com, since they generate revenue by having people visit their website.
The second method does not give any information that the article was copied in the first place. The work is represented as one owns, not as quoted from another source and author. Only actions of the reader can reveal to original author, even though this action consist of clicking a link, which is not very clear in the first place. Note that bolding and underlining a title, can be just done to put emphasis on the title.
Now Tumblr posts are based by reblogs and notes. Who doesn’t love a few notes and thousands of reblogs? Everyone does. So this is a matter of jealously and resentment over who gets the credit or the most notes for a post that either is or isn’t an original piece of work.
You are actually saying here that it doesn’t matter who gets the credit for an original work. I disagree. Readers judge writers and their credibility on the works they have read from them. If they are under the impression that (for example) Sagansense has written all those article, they think very highly of him and will view his words reliable. At the same time, they have not heard of these original authors, who these readers will value less, even though they are the producers of the original works. The original authors will thus have a harder time teaching their knowledge to other and people will not turn to them with their questions. This is decremental to a scientific community.
The Science “community” if there is such a thing, should stick by their fellow science bloggers.
Indeed, but sticking to your fellow science bloggers means giving credit where credit is due. It does not mean making efforts to represent your work such that it can be perceived by others as your own.
Otherwise whats the point? Are we here to get on the Tumblr spotlight? Are we here to get a cute cat gif reblogged a thousand times? And be proud that our name is above it? No I am here to communicate science. A strong passion of mine. And for many others here on tumblr. All I care about is science.
Communication is not a one way line. If you want to communicate science, you need an audience. However, if someone is copying your post representing them as theirs, people will not turn to you for their knowledge. They will turn to the copycat, who has not shown to possess the same knowledge as you. Why would you agree with this? What purpose serves this? It mostly increases the change of misinformation being spread.
Not petty arguments over whose blog title is on what post. Take that crap to twitter or facebook. This is for education and communicating our shared interest in science to the public. Which is something sagansense does extremely well. Better than most. Now as sagansense put it
Without further adieu, onward with the SCIENCE….
So how did Sagansense do that? He communicates science by copying articles others wrote, and represents them in such a way that they articles are represented as his own. Adding a link to the original article does not help lift this representation. It gives the impression that that article was used as a source, to write the article on his blog. In effect people will see Sagansense as a highly educated and knowledgeable man, but he has only gotten there by taking words from others. So if we ask him a question, vital for the communication of science. How do we know he has the knowledge to asnwer those questions properly?
Science is not only about facts, science is a process. It constitute the search for knowledge, discussion and the sharing of information. Whenever knowledge is found, it can be misunderstood, when information is shared, it can be cherry picked and mangled, when a topic is discussed the data can be influenced. All these are decremental to the scientific process and help spread lies and falsehoods. Almost all of these errors can be countered by proper sourcing and attribution.
Let us get onward with science, but let us science properly. Let us put effort in crediting those who deserve the credit, Let us not put effort in obscuring the origins of the articles on our blogs.