A question about the source link in other people's texts

[light_warrior]

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)

[1714529893]

1714529893

[1714529893]

1714529893

[Beparanf]

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.

[NeuroticFish]

(Hover your cursor over the text)

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...

[light_warrior]

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.

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.

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...

Oh, I didn't think of that.

[joker_josue]

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?

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?

[Rikafip]

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.

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

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

[PX-Z]

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. 

[pawel7777]

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...

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.

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

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

[Despairo]

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?

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.

[PX-Z]

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

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

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

[Rikafip]

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

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.

[Little Mouse]

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.

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.

[LoyceV]

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

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:

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

For external links, use something like this:

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

[Mpamaegbu]

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

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.

[joker_josue]

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 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.

For external links, use something like this:

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

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.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Easiest: just click the "quote"-button, remove unnecessary text, and copy the quote:

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

Bitcointalk.org - Post formatting

User Script: Automatically remove nested quotes v1.1.1. Easiest to trim quote manually but if anyone want tool, that script is helpful for their needs.

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.

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

[LoyceV]

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.

This is how I remember it: start with URL tags:

Code:

[url=https....]link to site[/url]

Then add quotes around it:

Code:

"[url=https....]link to site[/url]"

Then add a quote-tag:

Code:

[quote="[url=https....]link to site[/url]"]

And finish by closing the quote:

Code:

[/quote]

[joker_josue]

This is how I remember it: start with URL tags:

Code:

[url=https....]link to site[/url]

Then add quotes around it:

Code:

"[url=https....]link to site[/url]"

Then add a quote-tag:

Code:

[quote="[url=https....]link to site[/url]"]

And finish by closing the quote:

Code:

[/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.   

[bullrun2024bro]

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?

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:

Code:

[quote][/quote]

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.