Search the Kids Internet
Encyclopedia > Talk:Agma
Article Content
Talk:Agma
The format of the agma page makes it appear that the entire text of the entry was lifted from ANCIENT SCRIPTS AND PHONOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE. If so, I would have questions about whether this is violating any intellectual property rights. I mean, sure, you can take brief quotations from works without permission--but this seems to be a quotation of an entire entry from a reference work. Even if that is legal, it doesn't seem ethical. I'm sure no one was intending to do anything unethical, but perhaps we should think harder about these things. Or maybe I'm just confused and you need to unconfuse me. --Larry Sanger
I don't have that book, and I can't find the quoted text on the net, so I can't verify whether or not this text was copied from that book. I can verify that if it was, it is clearly a copyright violation not covered by fair use. Small excerpts can be used in a larger work for commentary, criticism, parody, and the like; copies may also be made for classroom use. But this doesn't qualify as any of those: the paragraph isn't being taken so that we can comment on itin a larger work--it's being taken merely to reproduce it as is, for exactly the same use as the original copyrighted work, which is clearly infringement. --LDC
With apologies to the author if, e.g., the author was simply citing ANCIENT SCRIPTS as a bibliographic source, but without further information from the person who put this information up, it just looks to me like it was swiped from the book. So I'm taking it down--though I will be very happy to put it back immediately if the author can assure me it wasn't copied out of a book. --LMS
naw, that was only quoting, well, paraphrasing actually. certainly not a violation of intellectual property. Well, I rre-introduced some of the old info; i hope, it won't disappear again... anyway, no quotes in it, so everybody should be happy, and no info that needs a bibliography. Wathiik
well, i think now it's obvious that it isn't plagiarism (reminds me of my first year of studying english when everybody warned about plagiarism... Wathiik
Please don't confuse copyright violation with plagiarism--they are different things entirely. Plagiarism is misrepresenting someone else's work as your own; if one simply copies a paragraph from a book making no mention of the source and present it as if you had written it yourself, that's plagiarism. If you copy a paragraph from a book, giving full credit to the correct author, that's not plagiarism, but it is probably still a copyright violation. If you rewrite the information from a text in your own words, that's called research :-) --LDC
I'm assuming the content of agma is no longer a copyright violation. Another happy ending! --LMS
Well, it never WAS a copyright violation, even though it probably did LOOK like a violation. Anway, it's true, a happy ending... anyway, plagiarism is probably a form of copyright violation in its own right. You can sue someone for plagiarism, and you can sue someone for other kinds of copyright violations; although no one would sue a student, I guess... as long as s/he doesn't publish it on the internet ... Wathiik
I don't have that book, and I can't find the quoted text on the net, so I can't verify whether or not this text was copied from that book. I can verify that if it was, it is clearly a copyright violation not covered by fair use. Small excerpts can be used in a larger work for commentary, criticism, parody, and the like; copies may also be made for classroom use. But this doesn't qualify as any of those: the paragraph isn't being taken so that we can comment on itin a larger work--it's being taken merely to reproduce it as is, for exactly the same use as the original copyrighted work, which is clearly infringement. --LDC
With apologies to the author if, e.g., the author was simply citing ANCIENT SCRIPTS as a bibliographic source, but without further information from the person who put this information up, it just looks to me like it was swiped from the book. So I'm taking it down--though I will be very happy to put it back immediately if the author can assure me it wasn't copied out of a book. --LMS
naw, that was only quoting, well, paraphrasing actually. certainly not a violation of intellectual property. Well, I rre-introduced some of the old info; i hope, it won't disappear again... anyway, no quotes in it, so everybody should be happy, and no info that needs a bibliography. Wathiik
well, i think now it's obvious that it isn't plagiarism (reminds me of my first year of studying english when everybody warned about plagiarism... Wathiik
Please don't confuse copyright violation with plagiarism--they are different things entirely. Plagiarism is misrepresenting someone else's work as your own; if one simply copies a paragraph from a book making no mention of the source and present it as if you had written it yourself, that's plagiarism. If you copy a paragraph from a book, giving full credit to the correct author, that's not plagiarism, but it is probably still a copyright violation. If you rewrite the information from a text in your own words, that's called research :-) --LDC
I'm assuming the content of agma is no longer a copyright violation. Another happy ending! --LMS
Well, it never WAS a copyright violation, even though it probably did LOOK like a violation. Anway, it's true, a happy ending... anyway, plagiarism is probably a form of copyright violation in its own right. You can sue someone for plagiarism, and you can sue someone for other kinds of copyright violations; although no one would sue a student, I guess... as long as s/he doesn't publish it on the internet ... Wathiik
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|