Timeline for Is paraphrasing someone else's ideas and not crediting them considered plagiarism? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 10, 2022 at 22:15 | history | left closed in review |
Robert Longson Rob José Carlos Santos |
Original close reason(s) were not resolved | |
| May 10, 2022 at 17:12 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| May 10, 2022 at 22:15 | |||||
| May 10, 2022 at 16:58 | comment | added | sv_ | Not really. This question is seeking clarification on the SE Help Center article: How to reference material written by others, specifically the phrase, "closely rephrase/reword". It has nothing to do with the FAQ you linked. @Rob | |
| May 10, 2022 at 16:36 | history | left closed in review |
samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz Rob SpevacusMod |
Original close reason(s) were not resolved | |
| May 10, 2022 at 16:19 | comment | added | Rob | This question is answered in the FAQ: meta.stackexchange.com/q/160071/282094 - If there needs to be a clarification made there then the answer can be edited. | |
| May 10, 2022 at 16:00 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| May 10, 2022 at 16:36 | |||||
| May 10, 2022 at 15:59 | history | rollback | sv_ |
Rollback to Revision 2
|
|
| May 10, 2022 at 14:03 | comment | added | Scortchi | If the main issue is about plagiarism; perhaps your q. will be re-opened if you edit it to focus it on that. The material from your last edit seems almost entirely irrelevant, & it would help to (briefly) describe the Hinduism site's policy in a more neutral fashion. | |
| May 10, 2022 at 12:49 | comment | added | samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz | @sv_ Sure, the title and question are very generic -- and the obvious answer would be "Why bother with finding out if this is OK if you could simply do the right thing™ and cite the article?", but this won't help you, will it? | |
| May 10, 2022 at 12:46 | comment | added | sv_ | @samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz See above comment. The issue is not specific to research papers or blogs. Even the question title, "Is paraphrasing someone else's ideas and not crediting them considered plagiarism?" is very generic, there's no mention of research papers or blogs, the examples posted are just that, examples. This question in the body is also not site specific: "Can an SE user paraphrase all the original author's arguments, arrive at the same conclusion as the author, and choose not to credit them?" | |
| May 10, 2022 at 12:42 | comment | added | sv_ | The answers posted below are proof that such discussions are relevant to all SE sites, even though the original context is a single site. The main is issue is about plagiarism and the phrase "closely rephrase/reword" which appears on Help Center articles across all SE sites. I wanted a clarification on what those words mean in practice. @JourneymanGeek | |
| May 10, 2022 at 12:42 | comment | added | samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz | @sv_ The problem is that the general solution of simply citing the research paper seems to be not applicable to this particular site -- this makes your meta question special and not applicable to the rest of the network. | |
| May 10, 2022 at 12:37 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | And yet, nearly all the references seem to be primarily around your dispute with mods on a specific site, even if said site isn't named. Looking at the fuller context of this post, it very much is about one specific site | |
| May 10, 2022 at 12:33 | comment | added | sv_ | @JourneymanGeek The way I framed my question, it's a generic question applicable to all SE sites. So this is not a valid reason to close the question: "Your question is only applicable to one specific site on the network, and should have been posted on that site's meta." The question is about SE policy in such situations. It even references the Help Center article How to reference material written by others which is applicable to all sites. | |
| May 10, 2022 at 12:28 | vote | accept | sv_ | ||
| May 10, 2022 at 11:49 | history | closed | Journeyman GeekMod | Not suitable for this site | |
| May 10, 2022 at 11:34 | history | edited | sv_ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
add some clarifications
|
| May 10, 2022 at 11:00 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | meta.stackexchange.com/questions/309859/… seems somewhat relevant here | |
| May 10, 2022 at 9:50 | answer | added | Scortchi | timeline score: 13 | |
| May 10, 2022 at 6:09 | answer | added | chris neilsen | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 10, 2022 at 5:26 | comment | added | W.O. | You're correct, I don't know the first thing about the domain of Hinduism's thought and intuition or how knowledge is even sought and found there - even the notion of copyright may be quite different in this case, but without more specifics.... @TheDestroyer | |
| May 10, 2022 at 5:24 | comment | added | W.O. | @TheDestroyer Absolutely. Just as in English, no-one should need to cite Shakespeare for copyright reasons. If we don't know the exact situation, then it's tricky to be specific for this case. | |
| May 10, 2022 at 5:18 | comment | added | The Destroyer | @LittlePickle. i don't know which post he's referring to. There are some nuances here. in Hindu scriptures, only some translations have copyright while many translations are out of copyright. Unless i see posts, i can't comment on exact issue of copyright. | |
| May 10, 2022 at 5:14 | comment | added | The Destroyer | @LittlePickle. Similarly, Religious sites can also can't accept scientific sources or scientific approaches as valid sources because they are not correct framework to verify. For example, how can one verify scientifically (which is empiricism) existence of rebirth or existence of different realms as mentioned in scriptures? Correct procedure to verify them is through "Sadhana" after getting acquainted with Hindu philosophy, which may be new to non Hindus. Even if one can't agree with this framework, they can still accept it as "belief" on Hinduism SE. | |
| May 10, 2022 at 5:04 | comment | added | W.O. | @TheDestroyer Just to add, physics doesn't accept religious explanations for the reason that they're unfalsifiable and don't have any supporting mathematical framework - not because they disagree with the conclusions, which is quite different from a religious group excluding differing views for that reason. Then there's the copyright issue - allowing quotes, plagiarism or precis - if it touches on copyright, authors should be named regardless of belief. SE would be open to getting in legal trouble if it were policy to do otherwise. | |
| May 10, 2022 at 4:57 | comment | added | The Destroyer | @41686d6564standsw.Palestine It's not complete ban on scholars but only scholars who don't have views in accordance with core ideas of religion (you can call them beliefs; not all beliefs but "core" beliefs). A Physics SE site can't accept sources which say God made Apple fall instead of gravity, similarly on Hinduism SE (which he refers) a person can't quote Rishis/seers were just imagining, which is against core beliefs. Only such sources are restricted. This was already discussed on Hinduism Meta SE and got community consensus. | |
| May 10, 2022 at 4:18 | comment | added | cocomac | Um.. to clarify, are you saying that they have banned scholarly sources because they contradict their religious beliefs? If so, is there an existing policy on that...? I couldn't find one, though | |
| May 10, 2022 at 4:17 | comment | added | Ramhound | It’s impossible to plagiarize somebody if you quote and cite that individual. However, when paraphrasing somebody, you walk a very thin line that’s easily crossed into plagiarism. If individuals are being properly quoted and cited, sounds like the moderation, is on the wrong side of the generally accepted practice of quotation abs citing a source | |
| May 10, 2022 at 1:40 | comment | added | sv_ | The site happens to be one of the religion sites, so, I suppose, they see views and opinions of scholars (especially secular scholars) as a threat to personal beliefs of majority of users. In an effort curb these scholarly opinions, they banned all scholarly works, despite the site being hosted on SE, a secular platform. @41686d6564standsw.Palestine | |
| May 10, 2022 at 0:38 | comment | added | 41686d6564 | It's fine if you don't want to mention the name of the SE site, but I'm curious; has the reason for disallowing citing scholars, papers and journals been discussed on the per-site meta? This is mainly just out of curiosity because it seems like an odd rule to me, but it also could be relevant here because depending on the reason, paraphrasing might still be not allowed in this specific case, even if it's allowed in other situations. | |
| May 10, 2022 at 0:26 | history | edited | sv_ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| May 10, 2022 at 0:20 | history | asked | sv_ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |