Bitcoin Forum

I would like to ask the esteemed community of the forum. Will it be considered plagiarism if the source link in the quoted text is presented in this form?

Example:

33. Posting plagiarized content is not allowed.

(Hover your cursor over the text)

As long as you input a source on a context that you just copy & paste word by word then you are not committing a plagiarism because you give credits to the source.

Plagiarism is writing someone else's context as if you are owning it without providing source.

Imho it's not 100% OK since it looks like you've missed the smartphone users.
Yes, on my PC (Windows, Chrome) hovering works and it shows the source. Well... on my smartphone (Android, Firefox) nothing happens no matter what I do with that "object".
So I see it pretty similar to telling the source, but telling it in a somewhat hidden way (eg transparent text). Not 100% ok...

Okay, I'll take your post and present it as my own. But, in doing so, I will link to the source as I provided above. What in this case?

Plagiarism is writing someone else's context as if you are owning it without providing source.


Oh, I didn't think of that.

Nothing against this method, although we have already seen that on certain devices it does not work, since you are putting there the source from which you removed the phrase.

But now I ask: what is the point of leaving the source of information almost hidden?

Imho, its not just enough to mention the original source, but there should also be a clear distinction between your own words and something that is written by the others, whether by using quotation marks or quotation brackets. Sure, not doing that won't get you banned since tehnically it is enough to share the link to cover your ass, but it shows lack of honesty and/or posting etiquette and sets a bad example to new members who then do the same.

---

Tbh I can't think of any other reason other than appearing that those are your own words and not someone else's.

To avoid committing "plagiarism" you should cite the source properly.

Yeah, it looks "cooler" and "new/unique" than other ways used by other members but it is indeed a bad example, and i still avoid it and will use the obvious one. 

Good point but I don't think anyone would accuse someone of plagiarism just because of the limited capabilities of the device that they use.

I think the context matters way more than the way someone is quoting a text, i.e. quoting someone else without any wider context or reason to quote them would be a good indication that the poster attempted plagiarism or is at least spamming.


That's judgmental though, what's "proper" to me may not be proper to you.

Nowadays, people doesn't really respect to give the original source where you took every words from someone, they want to make people think it's written by themselves. Have you write a thesis? you will need to compile all of the original sources in bibliography section or do you paint all of the font with white color? ;D

I just hope plagiarism rule will be more tougher in order appreciate the original sources and prevent from this kind idea to hide the original sources.

We are talking about "plagiarism" here. And plagiarism is another form of theft, which is a crime. The forum is strict on this subject, if you don't want get banned just properly^[1][2] cite the d*mn source. You don't need to make it more complicated, or make fancy of it.

Obviously, making the source ^(URL) visible only when hovered it make it not clickable ^{(browser thing)}, so how it can be considered as the source.

[1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proper
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5133485.0

You would be surprised. We have members that are exclusively using mobile phones to access the forum so what do you think would happen if people started massively referencing using OP way since those members would have no way to see the hidden links?


I don't see how you can be accused of plagiarism if you quoted someone else's text in an obvious and visible way, no matter the context. In the worst case scenario it can be a low value post e.g. when someone opens a topic with copy/pasted wall of text without adding anything of their own.


As I said in my previous post, its not enough to just cover your ass by sharing reference link as everything should be easily visible when you copy/paste something, including reference link. We have members that were using all kind of creative ways to hide reference links and the fact that they actually copy/pasted text and that very little was written by themselves. They were eventually called out for it and in the end they stopped those practices due pressure from other members.

I think with a link, no plagiarism accusation and no rule violation.

I only think this abbr block is not good to use. It does not give members ability to click on the link and visit it to read original content. It is so inconvenience when members have to click on quote to get a link then copy and paste it to browser to visit original place.

I don't see good reasons why we should use abbr block than url block.

Sometimes, I put copied post in a quote and leave that as it is. Haven't sourced even if I'm correct. I didn't get a ban, I think it's because putting inside a quote also refers to acknowledging that the texts are not mine. That being said, there's no proper citation system here one has to follow. Simply, don't claim someone else's text as yours. That's enough.

This is probably enough to avoid getting banned. But that shouldn't be your only concern, proper references with clickable links are just better.
Easiest: just click the "quote"-button, remove unnecessary text, and copy the quote:

For external links, use something like this:

I think so too. Not everyone posts from PCs and those who don't are likely going to miss the "hover" thing. However, I don't see why source links should be masked. If you used someone else's work, it's only honourable to admit it by putting it where everyone can see it and know that it's not yours.

I hadn't even thought about that, but you're absolutely right.
Using the abbr function really makes font validation difficult. It's not impossible to verify, but it takes a lot more work than a simple link that immediately opens the original source page.




Thanks for remembering this!
I often want to do this and I don't remember how to do it. See if this time I memorize it. :P

It's trimming quote and fortunately, Steamtyme has a video for trimming quote

Bitcointalk.org - Post formatting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NHfaViknzM)

User Script: Automatically remove nested quotes v1.1.1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5148327.0). Easiest to trim quote manually but if anyone want tool, that script is helpful for their needs.

I only use it if I want to hide that I used the content from somewhere else.

This is how I remember it: start with URL tags:
Then add quotes around it:
Then add a quote-tag:
And finish by closing the quote:

Thank you for the tips! It just helped me memorize even more!

We are always learning no matter how long we have to forum.   ;)

IMHO, you can certainly cite your sources that way without violating forum rules, but doesn't it also have something to do with academic accuracy that you properly tag foreign content?

I mean, if you use other people's content just use the forum quote function and mark your text below with a "Source: XYZ" and the appropriate source link. See below:


In general: Be honest and cite the original sources. If you try to pass off other people's content as your own, it will be noticed sooner or later anyway.

There are not problem about source link in the other people's text or uploaded picture and video as long you input where are source link or the creators about your write is ability in this forum. But many user missing or forget for updating at last in their topic discussing about the source link of their post.

Not matter if you want to write with all source link page here but several user make its simple and seems beautiful with their unique post by giving include link but hidden, we can access it seems happened in hidden link we found in article review on google. Be careful when your repost about another people text and always use where is source link come from.

However the example you show will not help the reader find the original source especially since it is almost exactly the same as the original content.
This means that in most cases, reader eager to find source will have to spend some time retyping the link. This is a pain, and completely ineffective for android users.

I don't think it's necessary to have such post style anyway, and I think it just seems to cover up the original source instead of showing it clearly. I'm just happy to use the url tag as usual, and it has saved me a lot of time opening it in a new tab.

I have two examples here:

1. A question about the source link in other people's texts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5439752.0)
2. A question about the source link in other people's texts

My question: If you want to quickly access the source link, which one is better?

I would also say that it's not violation of the rule but we should not encourage this method and cite the source in right manner like in quote if you are copying the text from external source and embed the link of article in url tags which is much better.

As pointed out by @LoyceV you can use