This post turned out to be a lot longer that originally intended. I hate to do this. Hence I have split the thoughts into plagiarizing on the web and Internet, (where this dialogue started) and plagiarizing in the print media, where it conveniently ends. Part I I have referred to Santosh's posts on Goanet of merely zapping other posts. Analyzing his approach, he accuses his opponent of EITHER making up their facts OR plagiarizing. So this university (know it all) professor wins without presenting any ideas of his own. His debating opponent never wins. They succumb to this tactic of responding to his allegations OR his distortions of their writings; rather than the topic under issue. So one is left defending the allegations and explaining one's writings instead of advancing the dialogue. IMHO the reason why Santosh has a difficult time accepting other perspectives (as pointed by Frederick) is because, he has plagiarized and is mesmerized by the article in the web link that he has read. This without giving even an iota of analysis to what he read. Yet before I get to that: Does he (and others) take the web author's "authorized permission" when retrieving their information from the web and using it on the Goanet bulletin board? Based on the definition posted by Arnold, "An extract from Wikipedia", does not this use fall under "Plagiarism is the unauthorized use ...." After all he extensively uses the web links. If one thinks this is a broad interpretation as stated in Wikipedia, that is what Santosh is doing with the application of plagiarism to the print media. Does plagiarism differentiate between print media and Internet media? Did Santosh plagiarize information from Indiana University web blog to teach us the definition and what constitutes plagiarism? Will he have us believe that he "had their authorization" to use the Indiana University web link and paraphrase the information for us? Or does he not think, as per Wikipedia definition, this comes close to plagiarization, not withstanding that this is his usual MO (modus operandi)? Granted that Santosh did not do this "cut and paste" for profit. Contrary to what Santosh writes, merely giving the source of information / reference does not constitute "authorized use" or permission to plagerize. While he does this, (takes information from the web) he condemns others who use material displayed on the web. How ironic? Perhaps as Goans we never see the moat in our own eye. Santosh dismissed my caution that this is a legal issue. If he knows it well (without net surfing), is Plagiarism and Copyright laws a "strict liability" law or is it an "intend to violate" statute? To be clear, my condemnation of Jose and Santosh is not for what they do. I rebuke them for NOT practicing what they preach; and their self-righteous attitude to tell and strongly condemn others by their allegations.
Part II: Practice in print medium to follow. Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts. Kind Regards, GL ------------------------------- Frederick wrote: What you say below is a strange argument. You're so convinced that your own perspective on copyright and plagarism is flawless that you refuse to see another point of view, and instead ascribe motives to people who think differently from you! This despite the fact that one should raise questions the veracity of your interpretation of "self-plagarism", the logic behind self-publishing, the options to copyright, and why the CreativeCommons project turns copyright "on its head" as it was ... by using the concept to allow for greater shareability. On 24/03/07, Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW, it is you who has fallen into the trap. I have already commented on > self-plagiarism. Yeah, but your comment is way of target. You can't just say "I think" and interprete an idea in any which way you choose. Both you and Jose have an understanding of "self-plagiarism" which goes counter to the factual position of the concept as it stands today. Please see: * http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2007-March/055576.html (Santosh) * http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2007-March/055580.html (JC) If there is any reason for my attempt to refute you on this issue, it is just because we seem to be accepting as the Gospel truth ideas which are contestiable and not as "logical" as made out to be. (And, even the Gospel is debatable these days.) As I alleged elsewhere, it seemed to be that the otherwise rationalistic Dr Helecar accepts Science as his religion, a God which cannot be questioned. Now, it appears that he also places Copyright and concepts about plagarism on an equally high altar, never to be debated, and making suspect the potential for salvation of anyone who differs on interpreting these issues....
