Merit Gained from using Sources?

[cryptothief]

I was having a poke around the forum and noticed a really long detailed post, interesting and informative enough that I went to check out the user's other posts. I noticed that most, probably around 70%+ of posts were all sourced from various websites. These sources were always linked at the bottom of each post by the user, but he/she is earning merit for the posts (I'm guessing that the merit givers missed the source right at the bottom of the long posts). Just wanted to check if this was allowed or not, definitely seemed like a grey area anyway. I would think that if posting a full (virtually unedited) article, then the right thing to do would be to quote the source at the top of the post. I didn't take a note of the name, forgot, but should be able to find it if someone confirms this isn't allowed (will edit this post if and when that happens).

[1713406098]

1713406098

[1713406098]

1713406098

[SFR10]

Just wanted to check if this was allowed or not, definitely seemed like a grey area anyway. I would think that if posting a full (virtually unedited) article, then the right thing to do would be to quote the source at the top of the post.

As long as he/she provides the sources, that will be within the rules. Regardless of that, such content should be placed within a "quote tag" (some try to bend the rules and get away with it).

I didn't take a note of the name, forgot, but should be able to find it if someone confirms this isn't allowed (will edit this post if and when that happens).

Can you find him/her (would like to evaluate his/her case [in order to have a clear image of the situation])?

[Dingdongjl]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3242770.msg33773418#msg33773418
Is this what you are talking about? If yes, I can tell you that this is a trick he use to distribution of his merit alts.

[vlad230]

[...]I noticed that most, probably around 70%+ of posts were all sourced from various websites. These sources were always linked at the bottom of each post by the user, but he/she is earning merit for the posts [...]

I have come across users that also do this in my post review service but have not awarded any merit for those posts. Some of these users just do this to get merit and rank up to be able to participate in signature campaigns.
I encourage others to no award merit for these individuals.

[...] Regardless of that, such content should be placed within a "quote tag" (some try to bend the rules and get away with it).

Yes, I agree, the copy/paste must be placed in a quote tag but of course they shouldn't copy/paste the whole article (everybody can read it in the link provided with it) just some parts of it. Most importantly, they need to provide their own view on it otherwise, it does not bring any value to the discussion.

[botany]

I was having a poke around the forum and noticed a really long detailed post, interesting and informative enough that I went to check out the user's other posts. I noticed that most, probably around 70%+ of posts were all sourced from various websites. These sources were always linked at the bottom of each post by the user, but he/she is earning merit for the posts (I'm guessing that the merit givers missed the source right at the bottom of the long posts). Just wanted to check if this was allowed or not, definitely seemed like a grey area anyway. I would think that if posting a full (virtually unedited) article, then the right thing to do would be to quote the source at the top of the post. I didn't take a note of the name, forgot, but should be able to find it if someone confirms this isn't allowed (will edit this post if and when that happens).

I would blame the person giving the merit in such cases. Pasting a portion of an article from a website, along with the source, would be within the rules. Giving such posts merit, I am not so sure. In very rare cases, where a user has highlighted something newsworthy and which can be discussed, I think users may be justified in giving small amounts of merit.

[LTU_btc]

Good point. Sometimes I'm having dilemma when I want to award users with Merit, especially Newbies and Jr. Members. I see good detailed posts made by these users but I'm not sure that's original content written by these users or it's just copied from somewhere else. I'n too lazy to make research about content of these posts, so usually I avoid to send Merit for these posts.

[wwzsocki]

Good point. Sometimes I'm having dilemma when I want to award users with Merit, especially Newbies and Jr. Members. I see good detailed posts made by these users but I'm not sure that's original content written by these users or it's just copied from somewhere else. I'n too lazy to make research about content of these posts, so usually I avoid to send Merit for these posts.

There is not much we can do in such a situation. I am not good at investing plagiarism. Only thing I can think of is fast google search using parts of the text. I think if there are own thoughts added from the OP or even if he has highlighted few important sentences and this article was valuable to you then there is no problem with awarding him with one merit. If this is a pure copy and paste job then this no merit post for me. Cheetah from Steemit would be the perfect weapon for this.

Is there any other way to check such a post, maybe some online services where you can check pieces of larger text for plagiarism?

[botany]

Good point. Sometimes I'm having dilemma when I want to award users with Merit, especially Newbies and Jr. Members. I see good detailed posts made by these users but I'm not sure that's original content written by these users or it's just copied from somewhere else. I'n too lazy to make research about content of these posts, so usually I avoid to send Merit for these posts.

Detailed posts, which are good but do not attribute sources, would be an ideal candidate for investigating for plagiarism. A quick Google search usually works. Sometimes, users go to great lengths to hide plagiarism - changing characters, using a thesaurus, etc.
If you do a quick and dirty check and do not find plagiarism, you may consider giving merits!

[suchmoon]

I would blame the person giving the merit in such cases. Pasting a portion of an article from a website, along with the source, would be within the rules. Giving such posts merit, I am not so sure. In very rare cases, where a user has highlighted something newsworthy and which can be discussed, I think users may be justified in giving small amounts of merit.

Good point. Sometimes I'm having dilemma when I want to award users with Merit, especially Newbies and Jr. Members. I see good detailed posts made by these users but I'm not sure that's original content written by these users or it's just copied from somewhere else. I'n too lazy to make research about content of these posts, so usually I avoid to send Merit for these posts.

Detailed posts, which are good but do not attribute sources, would be an ideal candidate for investigating for plagiarism. A quick Google search usually works. Sometimes, users go to great lengths to hide plagiarism - changing characters, using a thesaurus, etc.
If you do a quick and dirty check and do not find plagiarism, you may consider giving merits!

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a merit sender to check posts for rule violations, particularly plagiarism. If I can determine it right away, sure I will refrain from sending merits and probably report to mods too. But if it looks fine at first glance - I'll merit it and 99% of the time I will not bother to google. Most of the time I will try to not even look at who posted it, because:

My understanding is that merits are (1) not about forum rules and (2) not about endorsement or trust. If you violate forum rules - moderators will take care of you. If you're untrustworthy - DT will take care of you. If you post constructive, interesting, useful, informative, helpful, debatable, quirky, inspiring, intriguing, amusing content - you get merits, even if you're a filthy troll or scammer.

To put it another way - I'd rather merit 100 posts and get a few "wrong" (whatever the definition of that would be), than merit 20 posts because I spend too much time researching each one.

[cryptothief]

Seems to be slightly differing opinions on this, at least on whether the posts would deserve merit or not. I have seen posts with literally just a link to an article or video, merited simply because they pointed to information that someone was asking for. This I actually agree with, because they have done the legwork and found the answer for the person posing the question. My only real point was that it should be made glaringly obvious that the post was not an original one, not that they don't deserve the merit. I decided not to out the poster in question, mainly because the responses above are mixed on their tactics. If a post brings perceived value to someone reading, and they have stated it is not original with a source link (no matter how subtle that may be), then I guess they are staying within the rules. It is especially true if someone has collated a number of relevant articles into one post, as it will save the reader the effort of trawling the internet in search of their answer. I'll try and check back on the profile (if I can find it) in a week or two and see what I feel then.

[selezneve]

Good point. Sometimes I'm having dilemma when I want to award users with Merit, especially Newbies and Jr. Members. I see good detailed posts made by these users but I'm not sure that's original content written by these users or it's just copied from somewhere else. I'n too lazy to make research about content of these posts, so usually I avoid to send Merit for these posts.

In this case will it be fine to use report to moderator option so that a moderator checks the suspicious post.

Now coming back to the point raised by OP, I think that if he is mentioning source at bottom, he is not breaking the rule. If one has to choose between a post sourced from another site and a self written post for merit, one should go for later one. There may be some exceptions to this like if someone has found a good resource relevant to the question asked, it can be given some merits.

[yojodojo21]

Maybe it was just His technique to lure merit sources, some Other users who get merits doesn't always base on what they know, they have gone some research and get some idea to it and then post it as a whole thread with some editing techniques that is why it is interesting, but atleast OP, ask permission to whom it may concern, because accusing someone without any valid reason and proofs and is upon the mandatory rules and regulation then maybe the story will be an ironic reverse.

[Tynovten_]

I actually don't blame him that excerpt, because it's not necessarily we get the information that he was mean.

It's one of the effort why should we blame him. As long the information really  beneficial he deserves merit.

Except the information which is not useful and then get the merit, that must be asked.

[LTU_btc]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a merit sender to check posts for rule violations, particularly plagiarism. If I can determine it right away, sure I will refrain from sending merits and probably report to mods too. But if it looks fine at first glance - I'll merit it and 99% of the time I will not bother to google. Most of the time I will try to not even look at who posted it, because:

My understanding is that merits are (1) not about forum rules and (2) not about endorsement or trust. If you violate forum rules - moderators will take care of you. If you're untrustworthy - DT will take care of you. If you post constructive, interesting, useful, informative, helpful, debatable, quirky, inspiring, intriguing, amusing content - you get merits, even if you're a filthy troll or scammer.

To put it another way - I'd rather merit 100 posts and get a few "wrong" (whatever the definition of that would be), than merit 20 posts because I spend too much time researching each one.

Yeah, but if there will be some wrong posts merited, I think it will be easy to accuse someone that he is abusing Merit system by sending sMerit to copied posts.

In this case will it be fine to use report to moderator option so that a moderator checks the suspicious post.

When it's obviously copied article, we must report it. But sometimes user posting only part of article, replacing some words, characters and etc. Then we need to make more depth reasearch before reporting. If I consider to merit post or no, I'm not planning to make research and spend my time.