4 ms·

so just Matt Might's article. great. :|

by tmoot 10y ago

tom_mellior 10y ago
For completeness, here is the link to the original: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- j-pb 10y ago
  Seriously? Did the mods also fuck with that link? I don't care if the other post was a ripoff I still would like to read it.
  - StreakyCobra 10y ago
    I don't know if the link above has been changed by mods or was a mistake, but here is the link to the original article: https://thebittheories.com/masters-versus-ph-d-2b26ef33f883 https://thebittheories.com/masters-versus-ph-d-2b26ef33f883 The original content is licensed under a CC license [1], and now (it probably has been updated) the reposter is respecting the terms of it: 1. Please attribute the original work to me (Matt Might) and link back to this page in your reproduction: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ as The Illustrated Guide to a Ph.D. 2.When you attribute, please also link my name, Matt Might, to http://matt.might.net/ 3.And, don't forget the "Keep pushing," at the bottom! So I don't see any reason why the original link can't be shared in thread's comments, especially because people should be allowed to see by themselves the original article in order to forge their own opinion on discussions happening here. [1] http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/#license http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/#licen...
    - tom_mellior 10y ago
      > and now (it probably has been updated) the reposter is respecting the terms of it The reposter still doesn't link back to the actual article as requested, though that's just a "please" clause. I guess naming (and even linking) the author and giving the title suffices to satisfy the attribution clause of the license.
      - StreakyCobra 10y ago
        > The reposter still doesn't link back to the actual article as requested, though that's just a "please" clause. I guess naming (and even linking) the author and giving the title suffices to satisfy the attribution clause of the license. Indeed, I thought there was a link to the blog post, but there is not any. The situation is different than before though, as the real author is now at least credited.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - tom_mellior 10y ago
    By "original" I meant where the content originally came from, not the "original ripoff link". So no, the mods did not change that, I did link to Matt Might's site.
    - mohitchawla 10y ago
      What is the point? Since the repost respects all the clauses mentioned by Matt under CC license. If you feel changing the link to original is appropriate, then its okay.

so just Matt Might's article. great. :|

by tmoot 10y ago

so just Matt Might's article. great. :|

For completeness, here is the link to the original: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
j-pb 10y ago
Seriously? Did the mods also fuck with that link? I don't care if the other post was a ripoff I still would like to read it.
- StreakyCobra 10y ago
  I don't know if the link above has been changed by mods or was a mistake, but here is the link to the original article: https://thebittheories.com/masters-versus-ph-d-2b26ef33f883 https://thebittheories.com/masters-versus-ph-d-2b26ef33f883 The original content is licensed under a CC license [1], and now (it probably has been updated) the reposter is respecting the terms of it: 1. Please attribute the original work to me (Matt Might) and link back to this page in your reproduction: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ as The Illustrated Guide to a Ph.D. 2.When you attribute, please also link my name, Matt Might, to http://matt.might.net/ 3.And, don't forget the "Keep pushing," at the bottom! So I don't see any reason why the original link can't be shared in thread's comments, especially because people should be allowed to see by themselves the original article in order to forge their own opinion on discussions happening here. [1] http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/#license http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/#licen...
  - tom_mellior 10y ago
    > and now (it probably has been updated) the reposter is respecting the terms of it The reposter still doesn't link back to the actual article as requested, though that's just a "please" clause. I guess naming (and even linking) the author and giving the title suffices to satisfy the attribution clause of the license.
    - StreakyCobra 10y ago
      > The reposter still doesn't link back to the actual article as requested, though that's just a "please" clause. I guess naming (and even linking) the author and giving the title suffices to satisfy the attribution clause of the license. Indeed, I thought there was a link to the blog post, but there is not any. The situation is different than before though, as the real author is now at least credited.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- tom_mellior 10y ago
  By "original" I meant where the content originally came from, not the "original ripoff link". So no, the mods did not change that, I did link to Matt Might's site.
  - mohitchawla 10y ago
    What is the point? Since the repost respects all the clauses mentioned by Matt under CC license. If you feel changing the link to original is appropriate, then its okay.