Plagiarized or Copied

Tags: ,
Comments: 5 Comments
Published on: May 20, 2010

Today I ran into an interesting website.  While I was trying to locate information concerning a SQL Saturday event, I came across one of my blog entries on another site.  I syndicate to SQLServerCentral and SQLServerpedia and am fully aware that my blogs would be verbatim on each of those sites.  That is expected, both parties and I agreed to terms and conditions of syndicating my blog on those sites.  This site was neither of them.  My blogs that appear on this site could be found here (as of the writing of this article).

I had to ponder it for a bit.  The intent of the site, as they state, is to pull the best of the blogs to a single site.  That may seem a little flattering for somebody new to the blogging world.  I decided to ask some peers what they thought of the site.  You can find that question here and follow the conversation about it.  Flattery or not it is stealing of content as Buck Woody brought up in his blog on the topic after word spread.  Thanks to Gail Shaw for forwarding it out on twitter.  A lot of people have their blogs copied to this site, and none via permission.  Emails are being generated and being sent to (removed email address) the admin of the site.  If your content has been stolen, I suggest you do the same.

Personally, if a request came to me asking my permission to have my material syndicated on that blog site – I would consider it.  But please don’t just post my content without proper attribution or having requested my permission.

5 Comments - Leave a comment
  1. Just to be clear on this–because I think there was a lot of overreaction in this case–you were not “plagiarized.” Rather, your content was copied. The guy who runs that site made no attempt to portray the content as his own, and as far as I can tell even linked back to the source in every case. Is this wrong? Undoubtedly. Is it plagiarism? Absolutely not.

    I don’t think this guy deserves to have had his e-mail address plastered all over a bunch of blogs without first having been given a chance to take down the material. Which he did VERY quickly once asked. It seems to me that he had good intentions at heart, albeit misguided. And he was treated substantially worse than the last few ACTUAL plagiarists we’ve discovered, who did indeed put their own names on others’ material. And who in at least one case fought hard before taking down the material.

    Food for thought, I hope.

    –Adam Machanic

    • Jason Brimhall says:

      Good points. Some emails were nasty. I don’t get the feeling from Steinar that he took my email as over-the-top as some were. It is a fine line between plagiarism and content copy. I do think that his intentions were good, though misguided. Without permission or attribution (and posting articles in their entirety), what is the difference between copied and plagiarized? True, he did not put his own name on the articles, but without anybody’s name on the articles (except a category link), it is difficult to discern who the author was. And whether intentional or not, I feel this would still hold as a case of plagiarism. http://www.wadsworth.com/english_d/special_features/plagiarism/definition.html

      That said, I wanted to get a feel for it prior to actually posting a blog about it. I am also discussing with Steinar where to go from here and permitting him to syndicate my content. It is due to his complete willingness to undo the mistake quickly that I am more than willing at this moment to work with him.

      Due to your comment, I will remove his email address from my blog. It is unfair to have it there.

  2. [...] week I posted an article about plagiarism.  This is a follow-up to that.  After posting that blog article, Steiner quickly removed the copied content.  The tone may have [...]

  3. EugeneZ says:

    Hi Jason,
    Can you please post a link to original and “bad” posts ?
    I agreed with Adam Machanic: if the person “linked back to the source” (I am sorry Adam for taking your words fro the post above :) ) and gave you all your credits (again I did not see the article but I know Adam)
    I would think it is not 2006 or 2005 (as I remember) SqlServerCentral clean plagiarism case when somebody posted a chapter from Ken Henderson’s book as his article (word to word)..
    Almost everyone is using BOL, another Microsoft publications as reference or as link after article or as copied paragraph with a source where from it is taken.
    And let say honestly – there is no topic in SQL Server that has not been a part of some article, book . People in most cases do not copy from somebody book and sell as their own (plagiarism) instead they share their own SQL Server experience.
    You will see people print what was a source of specific information and give a credit to author.

    Jason:
    it is a theoretical point of my view:
    I did not see your original post and “bad” post
    please post links to both (unless “bad” was gone).
    It is a “case by case” in real life.
    If the person posted just a small fragment of your work and link to all your publication:
    I would say – “It is not so bad”
    if he posted all your publication without your permission: “it is not good”.

    Take care. Everything will be fine

    EugeneZ

    • Jason Brimhall says:

      The original posts can all still be found on this site. The copied stuff was in full on sqlblogs but has been removed. As I said in the follow-up, I don’t think this was an intentional incident of plagiarism and Steinar and myself are working on getting him some content at the moment.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>






Calendar
May 2010
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
Content
SQLHelp

SQLHelp


Welcome , today is Sunday, April 20, 2014