Do You Nominate Finest Posts?

I agree that there are probably no original, new ideas in the world. But that is no defence for plagiarism. It is understandable that one reads something and finds it really worth sharing. For that, there is a forum called 'good forwards'. One can share texts here and if the source is known, it would be a nicety to give credit to the original post either by mentioning it or by including the copied material in 'quotes'. For smaller quotations, no one could object if due credit was given to the original source and the poster uses this to support what he/she has to say. However, what feels strange and sad is if someone writes one paragraph of their own then a whole long text which is lifted verbatim from elsewhere with no credits.

 

Jayasala,

The discussion has the potential to deflect into an argument by analogy fallacy (Bharathi example), so let's refrain doing that. I will elaborate my thoughts later.

But Satchi has already expressed. I will write up later.

 

Let's mark that observation, 'repeat' ideas though not 'repeat expressions'.

Again, let's mark this observation also, "similar terms".

Good messages deserve to be publicised. Repeated good messages earn a wider circulation. However, no good or repeated message should be passed off as one's own produce with no citation, source and even a credit of such inspiration if the material is received in a whatapp forward or an FB share of a trending blog.

This is not a forum for cachets or whips but last I heard integrity and credibility are still intact in the forum. Curious, why shouldn't plagiarism be punished? Why shouldn't uncredited appropriation not be impugned?

I have no idea what conspired between them both. I don't know Bharathi or Avudai. If Bharathi cribbed off pages of Avudai and passed off as his own with no credit or even mention in his verbatim discourse, we should not glorify Bharathi for his work but only his intention to promote Avudai. Why do you think if Bharathi got away scot-free we should emulate him? Just because Bharathi didn't credit Avudai for verbatim rip off everyone should follow that? By the way, we are talking verbatim here right with no credit.

IL members can share their views in forwards and chit-chat threads also with a pointer: Hey I found this blog trending in FB, what are your views with the original link. Why do you think members would not share their views unless the contents of the blog are copied verbatim and foisted as one's own work? What is wrong in having the same discussion on that original blog after all it has only been verbatim copied and pasted, no, yes, no, yes, yes or no?

Repeat ideas + similar expressions do not evolve into verbatim on their own unless there is telepathy involved. We set forth a terminology to describe writing. One is called "inspiration" and "citation" or "quotation" and the other is called "plagiarism". Copying and pasting text of someone's work as their own is never called "inspiration" or "ode" or the likes.

Putting aside all the peripheral inspiration, citation, regurgitation and transliteration and translation, if I publish Alice in Wonderland as my creative work verbatim, are you saying it is okay. Of course Lewis Carroll will never know that and readers can be fooled too easily, or can they? Digital world is too small Jayasala, people read and follow too many blogs to not sniff authenticity from fake or a rip-off.

This is a friendly forum hence such incidents are overlooked. There might not be disciplinary punishment but loss of readership and respect is punitive enough. Let's not endorse plagiarism with convoluted and fallacious reasoning and archaic imitations.

 

Dear Smt. Jayasala:

If you take science for example, we can easily identify many scientific inventions of recent years under broad categories of inventions made by most renowned scientists:

1) Archimedes
2) Galileo
3) Edison
4) Newton
5) Einstein
6) Tesla

By stating that I am not trying to undermine all new inventions. If you go to the fundamental level, all of the inventions made are not inventions by definition, but discovery of something that already existed in the universe. But someone writes an article proving E=MC squared without mentioning anything about Einstein, it is something that need to be considered as plagiarism.

There is no doubts in my mind that thoughts could originate in multiple minds at the same time. As long as they are presented in their own language with different dimensions, we can learn something new. Even though Prasthana Treyas are saying the same thing, the Upanishads are considered as Observation, the Brahma Sutras are considered as Modelling and Bhagavad Gita is considered as Application, providing various dimensions to understand the purpose of life. Even an Atheist could have right living principles without studying any of them by finding the root cause of his sufferings. In fact, even Upanishads are recommending self-inquiry.

Moreover, by defining the purpose of each Forum, the founders of IL have requested newly read "interesting information" to be written in "Forward" forum instead of elsewhere. Recently, two young mothers wrote about postpartum emotions and how people around could help these young mothers overcome those experiences. Frankly, I enjoyed reading both as these two mothers eloquently covered the same subject in their own language providing a wonderful perspective. Those write ups are always welcome as it stems directly out of the hearts of young mothers out of their personal experiences.

The purpose of this Forum is to share thoughts and ideas that could be mutually beneficial and all the encouragement given through nominations is to share more thoughts and ideas.

Viswa

 

I just shared my thoughts.It is not to contest the rules and regulations of the forum.No doubt original ideas and writings have their own sweet flavour.I fully understand the significance of different classifications and the value behind the same.I am not supporting plagiarism but only say that in a forum where thousands of members from various countries participate at the same time and when many topics are discussed around the world under some event, we may not be able to classify any topic as purely original ,as it is likely to have originated from various sources, by reading,hearsay, through lectures or learnt thro one's own life experience.
I do not like to add more to this.
Jayasala 42

 

Demographics, turnout, taxonomy, none of this reasoning explains replication. I don't know the condition of printing press back then, possibly the poets were rewarded for copying and spreading the word. But we live in a networked and digital world where a link to the original source will suffice to publicise good work with good intentions. In fact because we network among countries, tablets and myriad topics, just a link ought to suffice as communication. There's a reason Facebook has named its relay functionality as “share” rather than inline "copy". Origin of ideas, topics, inspiration, and creativity and how they are relayed can be confused and contested but I see no contention in unauthorised verbatim reproduction. That looks like an open and shut case. Done, nothing else to add.