ㅤ

[KingsDen]

If I am a moderator or if I want to report plagiarism to a moderator,  I will not consider 1, 2 and 3 as plagiarism.
Obviously, they are not. In as much there is no standard or professional way of referencing in this forum, such as APA style etc, any style can go.

However, I do no see the reason anyone should use the number 4 option in referencing. If actually I want to reference someone and then hide the reference, to what purpose? Maybe, tempting the moderator or bringing an innovation?

[aioc]

 Putting something in quote is enough to show the public that you are not trying to make it look like the content is yours. Hence the quote tags. I still wouldn't do that without placing a source link. You would most certainly be safe from getting banned, but maybe a mod would consider deleting your post. I personally see if as an unneeded gamble.  

You are right on this that is why we have the quote tag and it is equivalent to quote and I quote making it appear that you don't own the sentence or portion of the article but simply quoting, I have done it several times but you have to insert the link where you get the text for reference so to invite readers to check your source to justify your post and making it not appear out of context.

[LoyceV]

The 2 is not bad either but 1 is the best. I can never use 2, it is a way some people might later modify how they include link in a way that is irritating.

I see "option 2" (with a link at the bottom) a lot, but I don't like it. By omitting the quote button it's not instantly clear that it's a quote, and if someone were to quote part of that post, chances are the fact that it was a quote already disappears completely. Example:

Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.

<my response to this text makes it look as if Ratimov typed this>
This is better:

Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.

<if I quote option 1, at least the quote inside the quote makes it still clear Ratimov didn't write this>

All these examples have the same error, since the quoted material should be marked with quotation marks.

This is not required and is not required by anyone.

I've argued before that it should be required. I currently consider it a loophole in the forum rules.

I will say more, even if I quote like this:

~

this will be quite enough to avoid accusations of plagiarism.

That's another loophole. It may not be plagiarism, but it sure is a copyright violation.

My preferred option (let's call it #5) would be this:

Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele made yet another bullish Bitcoin (BTC) prediction soon after the International Monetary Fund had urged his government to remove Bitcoin’s status as legal tender.

Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.

The president cited Bitcoin’s scarcity case, emphasizing there are “more than 50 million millionaires” in the world, and there is not enough Bitcoin if each one of them wanted to own at least 1 BTC.

Or, now that I think about it, this would be even better (but I don't use this myself):

Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele made yet another bullish Bitcoin (BTC) prediction soon after the International Monetary Fund had urged his government to remove Bitcoin’s status as legal tender.

Bukele took to Twitter on Monday to predict that Bitcoin will ultimately see a “gigantic price increase” due to its limited supply of only 21 million digital coins.

The president cited Bitcoin’s scarcity case, emphasizing there are “more than 50 million millionaires” in the world, and there is not enough Bitcoin if each one of them wanted to own at least 1 BTC.

[Pmalek]

You are right on this that is why we have the quote tag and it is equivalent to quote and I quote making it appear that you don't own the sentence or portion of the article but simply quoting...

Ratimov didn't mention it in his OP, but I am pretty sure you could also use italicized fonts in quotation marks to copy certain content and that would be fine as well. It needs to be clear you are not trying to pass it off as your own and admins can easily see what exactly is copy-pasted.

I could say something like this for example:
Suchmoon said "put it in quote tags and remove all doubt". But Ratimov doesn't think it's necessary, and he stated: "this is not required and is not required by anyone".

Even though those two sentence segments don't belong to me and I copy-pasted them, no one could look at the sentence above and think that I have plagiarized. It's clearly indicated who said it and the copy-pasted content is easily recognizable. Whether or not it should be done is a completely different ting though.   

[masulum]

Maybe article below will make this thread easier to understand and how it should be done. This means that if everything in a post meets the stated criteria, then the post is not called plagiarism. Regarding quotation marks, because not everyone cares about it or doesn't understand that it is one of journalistic ethics, I think it can be understood, because there are definitely a lot of members here who don't have a journalist background.

How do you avoid plagiarizing?
* Give the author of the material credit by " documenting" or " citing" your sources (terms which mean you credit your source).
* Give credit whenever you use a direct quote by placing it in quotation marks and giving the author credit.
* Give credit whenever you paraphrase (state/write in a different way) a thought, idea, or words within the research paper and at the end of the paper in the bibliography
* Give credit within a research paper through footnotes or parenthetical remarks.
* Give credit at the end of a research paper in the bibliography.

Let's look at the post made by stonybrook (link below), in that article, they copied my quoted points above, the contents exactly the same as the one on USG, and only included a hyperlink to the source. This mean, this is a normal thing that can be done


Source 1: https://guides.library.stonybrook.edu/citations/avoid-plagiarism
Source 2: https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit08/credit08_03.phtml

[eddie13]

It should be made OBVIOUS that whatever you are quoting is not your own words..

It should not be easy to mistake quotes words as the posters own words..

The poster absolutely should not edit words like “I” “WE” or “US” into the quoted text to further trick readers into believing that the quoted text is the posters own words..

The link containing the original text should be obviously attached to the quoted text, and not just hidden in a bunch of other irreverent links to further confuse readers into believing that the text is the posters original words but barely escape a permaban because “the link was there”..


Ratimov...  

[NotATether]

An unrelated idea to the main topic, but I think it would be a good idea to make the link URL visible next to the link text by default (this can be turned off in account preferences on a per-user basis), if only to protect from phishing and malware attempts.

[skarais]

Regardless of what style the poster uses to credit the original author, as long as they provide the source to the original post then I don't think it's plagiarism. But the 4th option is something that can be considered plagiarism because it will not be noticed clearly even if it has an disguised source.

I don't feel that options 1, 2, and 3 are a problem for most people as they have a clearly visible source and the poster probably has its own style to do so.

[uchegod-21]

If I want to reference somebody, it means I want to give someone credit for his or her works. But if I give such credit and hide it so that the person I am giving the credit and others will not notice that I have given the author the credit. I think the reason for the credit is defeated. Giving someone credit should happen in a simple and straightforward manner.

[Pmalek]

But the 4th option is something that can be considered plagiarism because it will not be noticed clearly even if it has an disguised source.

That disguise makes it partially plagiarism because you are making it seem like your wrote it. It's more difficult to create that disguise in example #4 than to do what was shown in cases 1-3. You are technically putting more effort into hiding the source than showing it.