How many of you when answering a thread rely on the internet to give perhaps give a bigger broader, picture of what your trying to get across to others ? When you do this are you also copying and pasting the internet definition as your own? Because if that be the case, keep in mind it is still considered plagiarism. Sure there are those, that do this on occasion with no thought as to it being wrong. It has also been stated that in some instances changing the wording to make it your own is still a form of plagiarism. My source was : Quora Just something I have wondered about for awhile now, and well frankly I think it is worth bringing up. I feel justified in bringing it up, as there are times when answers to a thread are just too perfect in format and wording.
If I quote something, I always provide a link to the original source. If there is not one, then I’ve unintentionally omitted it and I should be reminded.
Frankly I get tired of scrolling through the google "cut and paste" articles on the forum. If I want to know more about something I can google it for myself. I seldom bother to read pasted paragraphs so my scrolling finger gets a workout. I'd much rather read someone else's own comments than a bunch of copied/pasted drivel.
I'll incorporate what I've read, but do it in my own words and--like Thomas--I try to include a link. Not only is it honest, but the more data I provide that caused me to arrive at my conclusion, the more I learn when others take the time to read that data and give me their take on it. I would assume that any one who engages in copy/paste activity is probably tiresome on lots of different levels, anyway. Plagiarism is not the infraction, it's just another facet of a personality.
There are perhaps two sides to this conversation as someone who is a hunt and peck typist and even a short response is a rather painful exercise the 'cut and paste' option allows me to get my thoughts across without a lot of time correcting my output to the point where I don't look like a total ignoramus. My mind and thoughts are way ahead of my ability to express them and it is extremity frustrating... Spelling and typo corrections on this short missive exceeded a dozen!
I can understand that. I remember when I taught myself to touch type back in the early 1980s when I got my first computer. Before then it was Hunt & Peck on a typewriter, meaning there was little room to make corrections. I've sort of lived behind a keyboard ever since then, and can rattle my thoughts out real fast. You reminded me of how frustrating it can be if you can't type well. I've known folks that have used Voice Recognition software to overcome that obstacle. Let's just say the results were "interesting," and you better review it 3 times before hitting "Post."
I've mentioned that my mother was British, and had Cockney friends. I consider myself to be bilingual...I speak English and American
The thing is John that when I was living in Britain moving a few miles away was like moving into a different country so far as understanding what the guy across the room in the pub said, perhaps less so now some 60 years later. That said my vocabulary is still best described a 'mixed' even to the point of U.S spell correct struggles!
I grew up reading Fleming, Charteris, Kipling, etc, as well as The Sun and The Daily Mirror. Would you be my neighbour? We could go to the theatre and perhaps colour together later. Don't get me started on going up the frog.
It's Cockney. When you're leaving and want to say "I'm going down the road," you say "I'm going up the frog," because a frog is like a toad, and toad rhymes with road.
I rarely, if ever, cut and paste and article unless it is so important in my mind to do so. I, like Beth, do not read what those who do this post. If I respond to something, and it jiggles a memory, it irks me when someone has requested a source. God knows where I read or heard something and when. So, if one is that interested, do as I do. Search a source.
I will often voice my opinion on something that I have read, and then sometimes add a link to a website or video in case people want to read more about the thread topic. That way, they can read it or not, and there is never any question that I have just plagiarized something as my own knowledge. I know some people have said that it is hard for them to explain what they want to say, so they want to post a link to something online to explain it better, and I have no problem with that, providing that they at least explain what the link is about. If it is just a title and a link, often with no real clue, then I think that most of us do not read it. Ken has said he does not want a thread to start with just a title and a link, so when I find that, I often ask the OP to repost the thread with more information about the topic and then add the link. If the thread title does not explain what the thread is about, then I try to re-write it so that people have some idea what the thread is about when they read the title.