Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 00:13 UTC
Gnome In the item we ran yesterday about GNOME and the GNU Project, one aspect got snowed under a little bit. It turns out a claim made in the iTWire article about the role a blog post by Miguel De Icaza was false, and even though the claim wasn't ours, I did repeat it, and therefore, should correct it too. I also need to offer apologies for not framing the opening of the article clear enough - had I framed it better, a lot of pointless discussion and name-calling could've been avoided.
Thread beginning with comment 399822
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ansidotsys
Member since:
2008-08-15

wrote your own, you wouldn't be having this problem. Almost all of your "Read More" content is merely a copied and restated article of the article to which you are linking to.

http://www.osnews.com/story/22612/Russinovich_Details_MinWin_Once_M...

http://www.osnews.com/story/22501/Microsoft_Kernel_Engineers_Talk_A...

http://www.osnews.com/story/22610/GNOME_To_Split_from_GNU_Project_

http://www.osnews.com/story/22618/BusyBox_Author_Bruce_Perens_on_th...

If it makes you feel smarter to plagiarize other people's ideas so that you can say, "I wrote an article one time about..." so that you can feel informed and say wrote an article, by all means, go ahead continue. But don't get any glorious ideas about those articles being any different than the article which you got caught red-handed copying from. If it turned out that ITWire was correct about what they said, I'm damn sure you wouldn't refer to what you wrote as "their claim", but instead refer to it as: "OSNews ran a story on this a few days ago".

So if you're going to continue to rip content off other sites by just restating everything they wrote, get used to saying "even though the claim wasn't ours, I did repeat it" even when the end result isn't a positive one. Because really, that is all your doing.

Edit:

And I really love this one:

http://www.osnews.com/story/22575/Microsoft_Amends_Browser_Ballot_P...

"None of the companies involved was available for comment, so we don't know if this is really the end of it all."

You make it sound as if you attempted to contact them. But, yet, of course, that too was taken from the article: "All parties to the negotiations — Microsoft; Google; Mozilla, which makes the Firefox browser; and Opera, which filed the initial complaint that led to the commission’s investigation and ruling — declined to comment."

Edited 2009-12-16 06:27 UTC

Reply Score: -1

ansidotsys Member since:
2008-08-15

Now in case anyone interprets my previous post as too harsh, I would like to mention that Thom does write some interesting articles. Most recently is the article below:

http://www.osnews.com/story/21999/Editorial_X_Could_Learn_a_Lot_fro...

A lot of the content in that article, however controversial, was his own and offered an interesting point of view not often expressed on front page articles. It was a good article in my opinion, and brought a lot of interesting discussion as can be seen by the discussions of that article.

But nevertheless, nobody is going to deny the arrogant attitude that is inherent to much of his articles. It's just annoying to add to that fact that much of his 'articles' aren't even composed of his own ideas. Perhaps if more of his articles were similar to the one linked above, things would be different...

Reply Parent Score: 1

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Who has the time?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you need to go back to school and learn what plagiarism meanS before making such serious and heavy accusations. Plagiarism meaning taking someone else's words and ideas, and claiming them as your own, without giving source.

We do NOT do that.

We ALWAYS properly provide attribution and links, and we ALWAYS make it clear that our content is not our own. I find it very unpleasant and hurtful to claim that I plagiarise.

I can handle Mac, Linux or whatever trolls, but you're really going too far. Your personal attack on me is not only clearly unfounded, but probably also just designed to hurt me instead of doi g anything else.

Very unpleasant and unessecary. An apology would be nice.

Reply Parent Score: 3

ansidotsys Member since:
2008-08-15

Apologize for what exactly? You are the one who wrote the "Read More" link. And what is the read more link supposed to be?

Taken from your "Clean Slate": http://www.osnews.com/story/20693/OSNews_Clean_Slate

"Another addition that many have noticed are what we internally refer to as "long items". These are the items that carry a "read more" link, under which an editor writes in a little more detail about the subject at hand, and maybe provide an opinion or two. The idea is that we want to offer more - on the crew mailing list, I explained that the internet is actually a pretty simple entity."

Of course, you go further on to state:

"As you may understand, we don't know enough about every subject to cover them all in-depth, and as such, we have made a very bold decision. Basically, we love and hug our longer items so much, that we have decided to make them our primary focus."

Fact is, the so-called additional "in-depth" coverage is NOT yours, but rather the article which you are ripping from. Despite what you wish the "Read More" link to be - no wait-my apologies, I mean "long items" as you call them "internally", they are not your own additional commentary but the content of the article you are linking. I mean, look at the Windows 7 kernel articles. You wrote paragraph upon paragraph of content, all derived from the article you linked. So much so that if one were to read your article first, they would learn nothing more from the original article.

And in regards to your comment about me going back to school, how about you ask your teacher if providing a citation to the source precludes one from being guilty of plagiarism. If 90% of the ideas presented within one article comes from that of another article, even with sources cited, ask your teacher if that is plagiarism.

Reply Parent Score: 0

vaughancoveny Member since:
2007-12-26

wrote your own, you wouldn't be having this problem. Almost all of your "Read More" content is merely a copied and restated article of the article to which you are linking to.

If it makes you feel smarter to plagiarize other people's ideas so that you can say, "I wrote an article one time about..." so that you can feel informed and say wrote an article, by all means, go ahead continue. But don't get any glorious ideas about those articles being any different than the article which you got caught red-handed copying from. If it turned out that ITWire was correct about what they said, I'm damn sure you wouldn't refer to what you wrote as "their claim", but instead refer to it as: "OSNews ran a story on this a few days ago".


Thom runs a blog. Blogging by definition is logging the web. That is what he is doing. Logging something that is somewhere else. "I [sic] suppose, [hic], but I'm onest overst the eight!"

So ITWire is incorrect for "OSNews ran a story on this a few days ago". OSNews just blogged it. Of course there is a 10% extraction rule for education and many professions.

Blogging is not a profession according to "God damn me" Rupert Murdoch. He runs a journalist company anyway. Now you could write an article about my (not RMS) position on this.

But the comment claryfying what the story was really about makes sense, I see the point and of what your point was too.

Edited 2009-12-16 08:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1