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 399836
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.


That article is a recounting of a public speech held by Mark. I'm using his direct quotes, as jotted down by BetaNews, and the attribution is 100% clear in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH:

Before we start: thanks to BetaNews for once again detailing these technical talks regarding the core of Windows so well.

Reply Parent Score: 1