3 ms·
> there are now dozens of articles out there using that title format And if they were copying and summarizing most of the same content they would also be plagi
by fargle 7y ago
> there are now dozens of articles out there using that title format
And if they were copying and summarizing most of the same content they would also be plagiarizing. If they are riffing on a title theme about a different subject, which they are, it would be fair use.
> My main goal was not creativity or new information.
So that again would be close to plagiarism.
- brazzy 7y agoAnd again you show that you have absolutely no idea what "plagiarism" means.
- fargle 7y agoSo you copy a title, change one word to a synonym, summarize the contents, and it is I that doesn't understand what plagiarism means? Your QUOTE "main goal was not creativity or new information". When I said "close to" plagiarism I was being very generous.
- brazzy 7y agoFunny, a few replies up you made a big thing of "programmers" being "data entry clerks" as opposed to of-so-great engineers or computer scientists, and now when it fits your bullshit plagiarism argument, suddenly it's a "synonym". And what I wrote is a summary of the underlying technical issues, not specifically the Goldberg paper. So yes, you have no fucking clue what "plagiarism" means.