Well, he didn't listen. Ottava remains Ottava, impervious to any sort of course-correction, supremely confident in his own superior wisdom. Even with people two or three times his age, with extensive experience, etc., etc. This does not bode well for his future, he will careen from one disaster to another, in his personal, academic, and social relationships, always blaming others.
He will imagine that I'm just wanting to be right, myself, that this is an attack, as he has taken every warning to him that I've seen from anyone.
I've called this the "paranoid mind-set," and it can always invent arguments to justify itself, ignoring the substance, always seeking some flaw in the expression of others, never trying to
actually understand.
If we are sane, and we see someone like Ottava, we should be quite worried that this is us. After all, how would we know?
QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 10th November 2010, 6:08pm)
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 10th November 2010, 5:08pm)
It's also plagiarism. For an actual academic definition of plagiarism, see
this pamphlet from Indiana University.
Before you act snide, please read what the pamphlet even says:
Uh, Ottava, do you imagine that I'd send readers to the pamphlet without having read it?
QUOTE
"# How to Recognize Unacceptable and Acceptable Paraphrases
* An Unacceptable Paraphrase
* An Acceptable Paraphrase
* Another Acceptable Paraphrase"
This is ripped out of context. Ottava is placing this in opposition to my comment "it's also plagiarism," when the pamphlet clearly covers the behavior that Ottava claimed was not plagiarism. This is plagiarism, according to the pamphlet:
QUOTE
To avoid plagiarism, you must give credit whenever you use
* another person’s idea, opinion, or theory;
* any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings—any pieces of information—that are not common knowledge;
* quotations of another person’s actual spoken or written words; or
* paraphrase of another person’s spoken or written words.
The key word here is "credit." "Acceptable paraphrase," among other traits, gives credit to the source. It just doesn't use exact quotation. Ottava is using this to imply that copying "ideas" is not plagiarism. That is a very poor use of a source, the pamphlet, and if he did things like this with articles, he is a danger to the project, one of the worst kinds, under some conditions.
QUOTE
The problem with that policy is they call it "Plagiarism" when most Universities call it "Academic Dishonesty".
Source for that claim? "Academic dishonesty," I'd think, would be even broader. How about making up sources? Not plagiarism, but certainly dishonest! Not that it is necessarily a reliable source,
Academic dishonesty includes plagiarism as a specific type, which is clearly correct.
Now, what about the academic dishonesty involved in beating a dead horse? In pretending that you have the clear "victory" when you have not a leg to stand on? (below, you used "pwned" with respect to the Free Republic case, when that case didn't apply at all. Granted, this may not be, exactly, "academic dishonesty," but rather total incompetence, and the dishonesty is involved would be in pretending academic status and respectability.
And if you do have academic status, Ottava, shame on the institution, or I hope you are paying them instead of the reverse. Still, if you don't become teachable, you would be wasting your money -- or someone else's.
QUOTE
Intellectual Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement, and other problems that Wiki has, along with cheating, all fall under the heading.
What heading? Copyright infringement is not necessarily "academic dishonesty," so that couldn't be it. Perhaps it is crazy for me to expect what you write to make sense.
QUOTE
By taking it as you took it, you enter into a silly bit of over literalism. An example: "To avoid plagiarism, you must give credit whenever you use". In using Mathematical formulae, this isn't always necessary. I can use a^2+b^2=c^2 without having to have a footnote saying "Pythagoras" behind it.
Straw man argument. I didn't say that. It's a fragment taken out of context from the pamphlet. And, in fact, it would be a "silly literalism" to deny a general statement because there are exceptions. "Whenever you use" what? By leaving that part out, the application was not specified, making the statement look incomplete. I.e., as if one had said "whenever you use anything that was used by anyone else." Or something silly like that.
Ottava, the short of it: you have, for quite some time, been behaving as a Compleat Idiot.
I thought that this example might be clear enough for you to see, that, "Er, I was wrong about that." Do you know that the ability to be wrong is essential to learning? Do you know that the ability to admit error is essential to functional human relationships?
Do you ever make mistakes, Ottava?
QUOTE
QUOTE
First of all, very difficult to "penalize" a nonprofit site.
Non-profits can be sued and fined. Wikipedia has a lot of money and would be destroyed if it was sued for 20 million dollars.
Ottava, you don't know how to write accurately. You mean "successfully sued, winning a judgment of $20 million." Wikipedia would not be destroyed merely because it was sued, and if if, somehow, it screwed up so royally that it suffered a judgment of $20 million, do you know what would happen? Hint: it doesn't involve the project shutting down, unless somehow the lawsuit required that (in which case it would definitely not be about copyright violation.)
You have utterly no foundation or relevant experience in real life on which to base your judgments.
And what does this have to do with copyvio? What action of the WMF would make it liable for a sum like that?
Being nonprofit contributes to the fair use defense, and I documented that above, and, in addition, being a nonprofit corporation. That was the context of my comment about "very difficult to penalize a nonprofit site," which was incompletely expressed, and if you want to ding me for incomplete expression, realize that this would require that I write even heavier tomes.
QUOTE
QUOTE
This gets so esoteric that legally it means practically nothing unless someone does it on a large scale from a single source or some other way to make it worth the insane effort to prosecute.
A woman is jailed for stealing 23 songs. It doesn't take much in terms of copyright.
Ah, the RIAA, which is cutting off its own nose to spite its face. Cite the case, and make the parallel. You didn't provide enough information to find the case. But I did find
this case. She didn't just "steal" 23 songs. In fact, she didn't steal anything. What she did was to make about 1700 files available with Kazaa. It was 24 songs that were specifically proven, that's all. And the RIAA was trying to make a point. And there are other factors that make this not an applicable precedent at all. By the way,
this particular case moves on....If this is the case Ottava had in mind, he was very much mistaken. No jail. This was a civil case, where the standard of proof is only "preponderance of the evidence." This wasn't a criminal matter.
The very use of the word "stealing" for this fries me, because theft is a common-law offense, with ancient roots and heavy and clear moral issues involved, and "copyright violation," i.e., "pirating music," is a creation of statute, statutes which serve, as much as anything else, large corporate interests. Complicated issue, and I'm not pretending that justice is all on one side ... but I do see that people get completely insane about this, perhaps because of the huge volume of propaganda paid for, over the last few years, by those same corporate interests....
For the first time, it became possible to "steal" something without depriving anyone else of anything. Now, if she copied those songs and sold them, bingo! That was a kind of theft, and there may have been actual harm. Was she profiting from the activity? I really should look up the law, it's been some time, and some of these things have shifted over the years.
QUOTE
QUOTE
As the pamphlet notes, rewording is not sufficient to avoid plagiarism, it simply makes it more difficult to detect.
You are confusing paraphrasing with "rewording". "Rewording" is also called "close-paraphrasing" which isn't paraphrasing at all.
This pedantic detail is relevant? Close-paraphrasing isn't paraphrasing? Weird language, English, eh?
QUOTE
QUOTE
As to "copyvio," fair use probably covers almost all copying on Wikipedia that would otherwise be copyvio. Wikipedia is largely immune to prosecution for this, either as a civil or criminal matter, if it promptly responds to a take-down notice.
You were already severely pwned on this above with reference to the Freeper matter.
Sigh.
Indeed, sigh. Enjoy it while you can. Pwned? Ottava, I have well over twenty years of experience on-line, including the
W.E.L.L., Usenet, and forums of all kinds. You are a kid who imagines that the little knowledge he has is superior to the extensive knowledge and experience of others, and who stubbornly asserts it, and is completely closed to learning more. You are far more like Krunchlolee than you'd like to admit, you are merely higher-functioning, he is almost completely off the deep end. Or is purely a troll, hard to tell for sure.