Is taking stuff from Wikipedia considered that bad? She did acknowledge the source here, but maybe that was done later. The heavy downvotes seem a little severe in my opinion, but is that under your control? In this case we have someone who does have original content, but may not be presenting it in the best way. What may be acceptable on FB is not considered worthy of rewards here. We do not want to scare people away if they have something to contribute, so a delicate approach is needed. I'm trying to guider her to a better path, but as with you my time is limited.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It does not matter where the plagiarised writing comes from. Wikipedia, Encyclopedia, blog, science article, etc. They are all considered equally. Just because the writing was stolen from Wikipedia and not from scientific articles, does not make the plagiarism and intention of plagiarism different.
We always prioritize stolen writing over images/photography. It also depends what is the main highlight of the post.
I will remove the downvotes on these posts.
Thanks.
Wikipedia has a permissive licence and so people are not breaching that by copying text. People can also take images from sites that allow that (sometimes requiring acknowledgement). What we don't want on Hive is users passing off the work of others as their own and I know that happens a lot.
@amy-explores did you follow this? Expectations on Hive can be different to other platforms due to the potential to earn and it is up to the community to deal with issues. Please keep posting, but ensure the emphasis is on your original content with any material from others sources properly acknowledged.
The payout on the post was not declined.
Steve. After being around for so long, why would you think that someone should be rewarded/paid for an effortless copy of someone else's writing? :-)
That is up to those voting on it and she has no ability to boost her own posts. In this case she was providing background to a photo she took, which is what rewards should be based on. If it has just been a copy/paste from Wikipedia then there would be no case for deserving rewards.
Of course on Hive many of us expect some effort and she is still learning about those expectations. She is coming from Facebook where people toss out just a photo and expect a load of likes. If someone is primarily a photographer then what threshold do we put on the original text they need to add to deserve rewards? Can Hive be like Instagram where just a photo is enough? Some people are just not into writing, but I personally think it enhances a post to say something in their own voice.
In the case of this post it was an original photo and text she is legally allowed to use, so I saw no case for flagging it.
Like I said. The payout was not declined. The post was not published for likes but for rewards.
Facebook does not pay for posting.
Also, Just because Facebook is ridden with mass content theft/plagiarism, does not mean that the Hive ecosystem should be too.
Stealing is socially reprehensible. It's common, worldwide knowledge.
Try publishing plagiarism in University or any writers' type of website that pays for articles.
You would be banned/excluded permanently and potentially face legal consequences.
Also, any portals that have monetization for the content have strict rules about plagiarism and ban anyone who breaks these rules.
What does it have to do with anything if the content is public domain or free use?
Plagiarism is regardless if the content is free to use or not. Plagiarism is when the sources are not given. It is an attempt to deceive the readers that the author wrote the content while it was actually copied from a "free to use" website. The source was not given. If you wrote an essay in University and copied the text from Wikipedia without telling the teacher, you would be suspended. It is a fraud.
I ask once again.
Why do you think that you are entitled to get paid for plagiarism?
Why do you think that copying someone else's content and deceiving the Hive community about the authorship (by not giving the source or informing about the authorship) should be rewarded?
If you think that using free-to-use/public domain content without sourcing to exploit Hive should be accepted, then you are part of the problem.
If people use text, images, audio or video in their posts that has an appropriate licence then that is okay with me as long as they add value to it with something original, as this post did. Profiting purely from the works of others is not acceptable.
So I will say again that this post had an original element and the copied text was legal as well as being acknowledged as sourced elsewhere.
Please do not put words in my mouth that were never there. Some licences do not require credit to be given, but on Hive the copied works should not be claimed by others. That is obvious.
I have said many times that you are doing a difficult, but necessary, job that you may not get full credit for. I just don't like to see people driven off Hive for transgressions they may not even be aware of. That is why I take the time to step in and try to coach them to a better path. It's because I give a shit. I know others would just give up, but I'm stubborn like that. I really want to see Hive prosper, but given the tiny size of the community we cannot afford to lose people who could give it more value.
Amy is part of communities elsewhere that outnumber the entire active population of Hive. If she goes there saying 'Hive is a pile of shit' then we lose.
There is a difference between the misguided and the malicious, even if it is hard to detect sometimes. I may be fooled at times and so may you.
I think I have said enough and I have other things to do.