h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Moral, Legal and Proper Quotes or Citations - A87770299
Author: AE Hill - U14997160

This piece was an effort to develop some personal conformity.
I found myself rebelling at what I imagined to be the future for my efforts here.
Where is my towel?

After all I did admit, "I seem to be naturally irreverent."

So I offer it here and now just to stimulate conversation.

--your turn.

Absolutely fascinating and thought provoking. Many thanks for submitting this here.

Personally, I really welcome newcomers, because I think that to keep abreast of the real world we need what is commonly referred to as fresh blood. We need the opinions of others who've not been here for years and got used the the status quo. We need to question ourselves periodically, but sometimes it takes an outsider to get to the meat of a subject and focus on the important question to be asked.

In general, we like our Edited Guide Entries ( the ones we call 'Approved') to be backed up with facts. If there is an appropriate external - or internal - source we like to link to it. We include properly referenced quotes, within reason, I think there is a limit on the physical length of a quote before copyright law may step in.

However, because we are a Guide, not an encyclopedia we also have the Alternative Writing Workshop for entries such as this, where questions can be asked and views can be exchanged.

Good luck

It seems to me you've got a good grasp of copyright issues.

Basically, I think, we need to:

- Quote only according to 'fair use', and footnote properly where needed.
- Avoid thorny issues such as libel.
- Avoid plagiarism.

In reference to the last point: in this internet age, far too many people have discovered the joys of copy + paste. Just because it's on the web, doesn't mean it should be appropriated wholesale. Besides, digesting the material and discussing it is adding value, and comparing sources is always a good idea.

You made an excellent point here. This site is international. Sometimes, however, Peer Review tends to forget this. Rule of thumb: if you're not from the UK (and I'm not), be prepared to have commenters complain that your references are not common knowledge and not clear, and ask for footnotes.

For example, recently someone asked that I make it clear to an outsider why Stephen Douglas' 1860 claim that he was visiting his mother was bogus. Douglas started out in Chicago, and ended up in Maryland. His mother lived in upstate New York. Okay, but if I'd protested that it might be good to explain how far and in what direction you'd have to travel to get from Manchester to the Isle of Wight, and why you'd be lost if you ended up in Edinburgh... You see what I mean. Magnify the problem for more 'exotic' locales where English is not the first language.

Could we say that our aim is to be:

- Clear
- Truthful to the best of our ability
- Legal, and above all,
- Interesting?

How do I reply intelligently without a block quote?

Dmitri Gheorgheni said:
- Quote only according to 'fair use', and footnote properly where needed.
- Avoid thorny issues such as libel.
- Avoid plagiarism.

I like the practicality of you intend, yet…
All three are full of murky loopholes that allow for impertinent abuse.

I tend to push the limits wherever I find them. Sometimes it is just to be funny, at other times to be funny as well as to highlight ambiguities. This habit runs deep in my personality, but that is another book or two. I do get into trouble with this trait. One aspect of this dynamic is that I feel driven by perfectionist desire to avoid becoming the victim of rules that are defined differently than I understand (my common knowledge). This leads to what appears to others to be a rather argumentative trait. In truth I want to derive a common understanding with the rule-makers to avoid legalistic battles after the fact. I would rather capitulate than fight the system.

Take “fair use” as the first example. If I am a researcher in a noncommercial venture [and I am] then there is NO [well almost no...] copyright boundary.

Take “footnotes” as the second example, now the word “proper” is without reasonable meaning. If it is in the SUN or ENQUIRER “proper” is one thing, maybe two or more. If it is university, “proper” is quite a different thing. I could go on and on, but I hope you get the point. Please note, I am not trying to be unreasonable, but rather I am looking for where the lines of reasonableness lie [funny double meaning intended].

Thirdly, libel is in the eye of the solicitor, not mine.

Then finally, plagiarism, “A piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work” – from WordWeb 6.1 a derivative of WordNet. How could the undefined “length limit” ever be in violation of some notion about plagiarism when a block quote clearly does not present the information as anything other than belonging to the source. One purpose and NEED of a block quote is to clarify an editorial type of response. You may question my “need” to block quote in the second paragraph, but surely we all experience the confusion that results when reading the kind of response I am here making without such references.

Well, you've succeeded in confusing me thoroughly.

Were you asking how to write footnotes? I don't think we've ever come up with a stylesheet or anything for the Edited Guide, but we might need to ask the Subeditors. Since a lot of our references are online, it's perfectly fine to hyperlink.

So very sorry for all the confusion!

In a related way I was asking how "WE" add footnotes.

I like the "WYSIWYG" editor when I go to submit an entry.
It does what needs to be done... almost.

If all I had to learn was link and picture, I would be happier.
But link is a lot of arcane HTML stuff to clutter the creative process.
Picture seems to me to be much more trouble and out of control.

I may be wrong, but I believe the h2g2 "WYSIWYG" editor is a first year programming type of exercise.
It would be real nice if it were able to be upgraded to h2g2 standards to include linking and picture inserting.
This seems to me to be a reasonable goal, but I do not know the real problems.

Then too, the "Paste from Word" function seems downgraded to "Paste Unformatted Text."
M$ Word has a little used file format called rtf.
rtf is a non-M$ specific and open file format that could, in theory, be readily filtered when pasted without loosing much of the formatting, including footnotes or links. I think this is the kind of thing Lanzababy wanted to hear [I trust she will read this].

Please do not be overly concerned with my ranting. This seems part of my process to become conformant.
I am trying to become a good member of this community.

Where I loose you or get your interest, helps me to better understand our "common knowledge."

Oh, bye the way, nice article on Internet Sources, A86878949

Thank you

Hey, thanks.

That WYSIWYG editor is on our chief magician's to-do list. And I'm sure Lanzababy will be back to grab those suggestions and pass them along.

Here's a suggestion from me: if you know GuideML - see A395552 and A187229 - it's much easier to avoid the WYSIWYG editor by writing your entries in an older skin.

How to do this? Just adjust your settings to 'brunel', for instance, and then click on this page:

http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/home

Then do 'Write an Entry'.

Okay, to add a footnote:

This is a sentenceWe know it's a sentence, you dork. with a footnote in.

To add a link:

Today is the 46th anniversary of Star Trek: The Original Series. Celebrate by watching one its precursors, the amazing Rocky Jones, Space Ranger. Rocky has it all: ridiculous aliens, technobabble, a female crewmember in a cheerleading outfit, and a smart-aleck kid who saves the day.

(Put that in 'Write an Entry', then hit 'Change to GuideML' and see the result.

Oh, another tip: while you are in that skin, you can copy the GuideML of any entry you like the code of. Just replace the 'A' in the url with the word 'test' and hit Return. You will see the parser box and be able to read (but not alter) the code.

What else can I offer? Oh, pictures. You can't use the the picture thingy, because we only load pictures through official channels...that takes Artists or Editors... The pix get loaded for Guide Entries when they go Edited.

If you want to send things to , just mail them to postteamhg-at-gmail-dot-com, and include any pictures. The Post Team will do the complicated bits. (And we're fine with .rtf or .docx.)

is updated every Monday. This week's is at http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/ThePost (Or click on the words 'The Post' on your Pliny Front Page.)

I hope that was at least SOME help. (Sorry if it wasn't.)

Ah, thanks for your attention, Dmitri Gheorgheni U1590784

Yes I did learn quite a few things from your post, you were quite helpful.
We are however not exactly on the same wavelength.
No matter that, we are all different.
Then too, you and I do have some commonality.

I think one source of confusion may have been my focus on having a conversation more than just adapting my work. My bad, sorry.
I tried to say something to that effect in the opening post of this conversation.

Perhaps this is a good place to make it known that I have found all of the people here at h2g2 to be congenial, some even down right friendly, Kudos all!

AE;

I think you may have misinterpreted my comment on your entry A87767130 - From A “Weak” Mark in the Sand, the World Changes.

My comment
>My first comment is that you should not quote your link about Monty Python word for word. You should give us a brief summary in your own words and let the link speak for itself.

I intended to say that I thought you could have written a much more entertaining summery of the quoted review yourself.

I said nothing about copyright or plagiarism, you clearly sited your source. I just thought it a bit choppy and poorly composed. Personal opinion only.

In the entry you said
>Consider a short story about the Python connections.

Monty Python's Flying Circus:
Blockquote follows'...



The word story made me expect something a little better.


I will take exception to your comment in this thread ;

>Take “fair use” as the first example. If I am a researcher in a noncommercial venture [and I am] then there is NO [well almost no...] copyright boundary.

If there is no respect for the intellectual property of others, then I have a moral objection to it. The fact that this site now contains advertisements also puts "non-commercial" into a doubtful position.

FS

I tried to squeeze in a reply but the freaken computer ate my homework.

I will have to stay after school and re-due my response, sorry.

but I do appreciate your comments, thank you.


Æ

Okay Florida Sailor,

Let me try to recapture my train of thought before the computer ate my homework.

It was something about this conversation being a golden opportunity for me to learn.
To some extent you are right, I do need to better understand your perspective about starting with a big quote. I am reacting to many different suggestions to improve my writing. Sometimes the response gets blurred by my unexplained assimilation of several points at once.

The introduction did need work, and evidently still does need modification.
When I added material ahead of the quote I wanted to better set the tone or theme for the piece.
Other concerns were addressed as well; I wanted the reader to expect a story about connections, not about Comedy, or raspberries or snakes. I also wanted to get more hits from the search engines.

The way you put it this time, “a bit choppy and poorly composed” helped my see a different perspective. I will work on that.

Others commented on the block quote as well. Some voiced concerns of copyright or plagiarism, but were not too authoritative [everyone is so nice]. In trying to really assimilate that perspective I wrote A87770299. Then it was suggested I should submit it here so that a conversation about the subject could be stimulated. I complied.

As to your comment about “fair use” and your moral objection, perhaps I should have worded it differently. Maybe something like: “Legally speaking, if I am a researcher in a noncommercial venture [and I am] then there is NO [well almost no...] copyright boundary.” I respect the intellectual property of others, more than the law does.

This does bring up a new aspect of the general subject, quoting out of context. I do NOT judge this instance to be a real problem but I did try to say, “I like the practicality of [all] you intend…” bracket added to reflect my intent.

I certainly think “proper” credit should be given -- out of respect for the intellectual property of others. The question is NOT respect or no respect; the question is, “How should respect be observed? This is not a black and white issue. The laws have not been able to draw lines that make it clear what is even legal, let alone moral or proper.

The issue you seem to pointing out is not really credit as much as copying, even when credit is given. Is that right? This is where the law tried to reflect “normal” standards of professional behavior. In that standard, there was a long standing custom of researchers NEEDING to copy and credit the work of others. All research stands on the shoulders those who came before [As Sir Isaac Newton made us aware].

Then I come your legal concern about a non-commercial purpose. In what universe does any research not have some commercial tie? So what does the law intend? To answer that question may be beyond my license to practice but it is the question we must ask ourselves as individuals if we would quote anything. I am not trying to capitalize on BBC work but I NEED to quote it as a proper authority of the information for that research.

Perhaps the law should remind us that this subject is about “fair” or “unfair” use or dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical, etc, work. [1]
[ 1. ) “…dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical, etc, work” are words from the UK law]
Surely a law cannot really presume to legislate “fair.” [Oops, I guess it did.]

What is fair here is not fair there, is that fair? No, but I think you and I need to try to be fair regardless of legal complexities.

Hi AE;

>Let me try to recapture my train of thought before the computer ate my homework.

Just to let you know how I do things here;

1) I copy paste anything I want to refer to into notepad (strips unwanted formatting).

2) Write reply on local WP program, used to use M$ word but have switched to Open Office - long story.

3) cut and paste via clipboard.

4) only delete new text after new reply has posted.

Just the way I do it, but it seems to work well.



>The issue you seem to pointing out is not really credit as much as copying, even when credit is given. Is that right?

No, not at all. My point is copying as a part of the text of the piece, rather than a reference. A good example might be in my entry, A87740355 the section "Instructions for Naval Officers (1863)" is almost totally a blockquote.

My point is the quote should not replace the author's own words, especially when the thought can be better expressed in the author's own words in the context of the entry.



>In what universe does any research not have some commercial tie?

If you have looked into my space here, you will have seen that I do a great deal of 19th Century research. Most of this is for my own knowledge and shared with a few like minded friends. Unless I publish it here, or elsewhere, it is non-commercial.

I do not think we are disagreeing, just sharing perspective, which is a good thing.

FS

Yes we do seem to agree and the conversation is a good thing.

It would seem we are trying to understand each others preferences as well as where "proper" style comes into play.

But you wrote to me, "The fact that this site now contains advertisements also puts "non-commercial" into a doubtful position."

I do not see it that way, am I wrong?
Most researchers work for pay. It is for these researchers that the customs spring. If they are salaried professors at some school, is their research a commercial enterprise, I think not. The school may well be a commercial enterprise. I think academic research NEEDS to copy the intellectual property of others while giving credit.

" the quote should not replace the author's own words, especially when the thought can be better expressed in the author's own words in the context of the entry" How do you assume my words were replaced by the quote or that my words could have been better?

I thought the BBC words gave much more authority to the idea than I could have. But having quoted the BBC, my job was to show how that connected to any History that followed, namely the Python programming language [which I quoted another researcher] and then the Raspberry Pi [I should have credited some source, I remember not where that was, but I should have found the source].

Now I see you were probably right. I will work on that.