4 ms·
It's not technically plagiarized, because it attributes many of the direct quotes to Business Insider. But it's an example of repackaging content produced by o
by jawns 2y ago
It's not technically plagiarized, because it attributes many of the direct quotes to Business Insider. But it's an example of repackaging content produced by other sources, a practice sometimes called "churnalism."
This type of appropriation of content has been happening for well over a century. See this Supreme Court case from 1918: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._Associated_Press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._...
- tacticalturtle 2y agoNo, this is straight plagiarism. Those references to Business Insider were self references that the original BI article made: > A 24-year-old employee working in histology named Amanda, who spoke with Business Insider And > Raymond Lee, the CEO of the career outplacement firm Careerminds told BI. There is no rearranging of facts here - these phrases, and the rest of the article - are copy and pasted.
- dredmorbius 2y agoEmail the mods suggesting a link to the original source, and if you feel that the submitted site should be penalised or banned, why. At hn@ycombinator.com