Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Plagiarism (Read 1855 times)
The Valley Boy
Ex Member


Plagiarism
Feb 26th, 2012 at 6:34am
 
longy post this on the 20 February


longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20th, 2012 at 4:33pm:
Is there a greater hypocrite in Australia than Kevin Rudd? His performance over the weekend following the leaking of a video revealing his infamous propensity for swearing showed a staggering amount of only one thing – gall.

Rudd's failure to speak directly on whether or not he will challenge Julia Gillard before the next poll is in most respects pretty conventional stuff. Would-be leaders on both sides of the House duck that question for months before finally making their run and telling cameras shortly afterwards "I never absolutely said I wouldn't run". Bill Shorten probably mutters that in his sleep.

But that's where the conventional pattern ends. Unlike other leadership skirmishes, Rudd risks a lot more than a shattered ego. Indeed, it is hard to see how his actions in recent months can do anything but destroy the party he led to election victory in 2007.

Discounting a desperate bid to parachute Stephen Smith, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten or Simon Crean into the top job, here are the possible scenarios:

1) If, by a miracle, Rudd is brought back to lead the party to the next election, victory is far from assured. If Labor lost under Rudd, the turncoats who backed him at the spill would fight tooth and nail with Gillard loyalists for what's left of a diminished party – the best seats, the best staff, the best factional connections and the best chance of being part of a Labor Party edging daily closer to being the Greens' equal at the ballot box rather than maintaining its status as one of two majors. Party over.

2) If Rudd challenges Gillard and comprehensively loses the vote, he will remain in parliament and, having lost his ability to destabilise Gillard directly, would be tempted to tell the world every damaging morsel of information he has about her. That is precisely what the anti-Rudd camp believes he did during the 2010 poll – they blame him for the leaks that dragged Labor's vote down to result in a hung parliament.

3) If Rudd does not run, but never actually gets around to saying he fully supports Gillard, then he will do more than anyone else could (including Tony Abbott) to ensure Gillard is trashed at the general election. Unless something changes, that is the course Labor is currently on, and it would be a rout of such magnitude that the party would be unlikely to recover. Again, party over.

4) Rudd wins a spill and wins the subsquent Reps-only election (or, with the support of crossbenches manages to cling to power until a general election in 2013). In this scenario, Rudd appears to have saved Labor from oblivion.

5) Finally, if Rudd does not challenge for the prime minister's job, and comes out hand on heart to tell Australia that Gillard is the better PM, his support could help the party to win the next election without him in the top job.

Of those possibilities, the first three are the most likely. The fourth scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility but is far from likely. And the fifth scenario would involve a press conference featuring a fly-over by a squadron of aerobatic pigs.

All of which brings us back to Rudd's hypocrisy this weekend. He told Sky News' David Speers:

"... [there is one thing that] Australians want more than ever and that is for government and Opposition, Mr Abbott as well, to focus on the absolute detail of how we sustain the strength of this economy into the future. That's what motivates me. That's what motivated me during the global financial crisis: trying to keep the economy out of recession which we did; trying to prevent mass unemployment which we did; trying to ensure that we continue to keep this country strong despite the financial crisis in Europe. That's what motivates me and the government. I think we're doing okay on that score and I think it's important that we look on that main game, rather than be distracted by all the bits and pieces of day to day popular politics."

Breathtaking – and a statement that ensures Rudd's place in history as the arch-villain of Labor, the man who for reasons of pure power lust brought his own party to its knees.

Rudd truly believes, along with all his ALP colleagues, that his and Wayne Swan's stewardship of the Australian economy is what has delivered Australians a miracle economy at a time when our major trading partners are sliding toward the abyss.

He believes that, but he also knows that there are only two scenarios that will avoid handing government on a platter to the Abbott Coalition, thereby undoing what Rudd considers to be Labor's best work.

The choices are: Rudd backs Gillard to the hilt, or Rudd wins the spill and the subsequent election.

He knows he won't do the first. And on the second slim possibility he is willing to gamble the entire future of the ALP and, if you subscribe to his view of Labor's roles in navigating the GFC, the economic future of every Australian.

If this were a game, it would be thrilling. As things stand, it's terrifying. Australia has low unemployment, job creation is outpacing job losses, we have relatively low net public debt and a sensible fiscal consolidation program that will gradually deflate both our national debt and trim fat from the public service over years ahead.

Most serious commentators acknowledge the ongoing strength of the economy, and none has been brave enough to suggest that the Abbott/Hockey alternative can work – massive spending cuts to fund the repeal of the MRRT and carbon tax but also to maintain Labor's personal tax cuts and pension increases and, most recently, the promise to reinstate the private health rebate for higher income Australians. At this stage, it just doesn't add up.

Some readers will disagree with that analysis, but it is certain Rudd agrees that Labor has got its economic settings right. And he's shown he's willing to risk blowing that up simply because he feels cheated by his own party.

Unless Rudd can conquer his pride and publicly back Gillard in a convincing way, he is, by his own reasoning, putting himself ahead of every other Australian.


Then he posted this on the 24 February

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 24th, 2012 at 3:59pm:
While much of the media remains firmly fixated on Monday’s Great  leadership Showdown, most fail to understand that the real drama is actually what happens in the days that follow. Kevin Rudd has virtually no chance of winning and almost everyone understands that, with the possible exception of Rudd himself. His support is significant, but nowhere near what is needed to wrench power away from the woman who knifed him just 18 months ago. If the obvious state of war between Gillard and Rudd was a very messy and public affair, the private opinions of most MPs and ministers was just that - private, or at least not openly declared to the public at large. Kevin has changed all of that. He has called everyone to the battlements. Between jilted ex-leader Simon Crean, the perennially disloyal Wayne Swan and the annoyingly token Nicola Roxon, the hostilities are open and obviously run very deep.

This battle is not like the Keating and Hawke leadership struggles of the early 90s. Keating was a polarising figure both inside and outside the Labor Party. He was strongly disliked by some, but was still grudgingly respected by most for his intelligence and political savvy - if not for his abrasive personality. Kevin Rudd however, is openly hated and despised by most of his parliamentary colleagues, yet his bewildering public popularity - and therefore vote-gathering capacity - keeps him in the hunt for the top job. The problem now comes for those that support him. Some backbenchers in marginal seats will support him because they have nothing to lose.  They will never be on the front-bench and they are political history come the next election anyhow, so they will vote as they wish. But the front-bench is different. While mainly supporting Gillard, there are a growing number who have openly supported Rudd and presumably a few more who do so secretly.
The ALP is not known for being very forgiving of its own members or MPs. Think of the 19 year old Labor candidate in the forthcoming Queensland state elections who has not only been dis-endorsed for expressing a view the party doesn’t like, but actually expelled. Those on the front bench who support Rudd can expect serious ramifications from it. Gillard is not beyond punishing opponents and there will be plenty to vent her spleen at. Disunity will spread like a cancer throughout the party.

Leadership struggles are part and parcel of the Australian political landscape, but it has been a very long time since we have seen one as bitter and as hostile as this one and which has now spread so far in the party. The ALP is now officially divided and the leadership vote will not end it. In fact, open hostilities will now be the standard of behaviour.

And Tony Abbott can just stand by, smile and reap in hundreds of thousands of more votes. His advantage is that it doesn’t matter who  wins on Monday. He has taken on and beaten both of them before and they are equally toxic to their party and the electorate. The next election is his for the taking and possibly at a record majority.

What the Labor Party desperately needs now is a third candidate that can take the bridge of the Titanic, send an SOS and try and save as many as he can before bravely disappearing beneath the icy electoral waters.


cont
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
The Valley Boy
Ex Member


Re: Plagiarism
Reply #1 - Feb 26th, 2012 at 6:42am
 
Quote:
But who is left to choose? Those with experience (eg Crean) have marginalised themselves so much as to be of no help and those without experience are never in short supply, but of no real help. Steven Smith could possibly do the job well, but has no real support. And why would he want a suicide mission anyhow? Taking the ALP to a record defeat is not on anyone’s bucket list, yet someone will end up doing it.

But at least in the midst of all the doom and gloom there is always someone who can make us laugh - or at least mock. Rob Oakeshott did all but profess his undying love for Gillard by threatening to vote against the government if she were replaced. But in a way only he could explain (in 20 minutes or more), he said he would deal with Turnball, much to the amusement of the press gallery. Perhaps he doesn’t realise that Turnball is not the Opposition Leader and has little hope of doing so in the foreseeable future.

Monday will be interesting, but Tuesday and onwards is where the real drama happens.


then on the 22 February  one of the mod perception_now posted this

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 11:39am:
What is Plagiarism?

Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means
    to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
    to use (another's production) without crediting the source
    to commit literary theft
    to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

But can words and ideas really be stolen?
According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file).
All of the following are considered plagiarism:

    turning in someone else's work as your own
    copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
    failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
    giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
    changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
    copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism.

Link -
http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html
=================================
I recommend that all members, if using someone else's material, credit the source of that material.

A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action.   

Whilst the result of any such legal action, would be for the courts to decide, the risk of incurring what can be massive legal costs alone, should be a sufficient deterrent for most people, not to risk whether something is or is not plagiarism!



I want to know why nothing has been done about members plagiarism quotes and not saying where they get it from

FD did you know you are be responsible for anything that is posted on the forum as been the owner of the forum
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Annie Anthrax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Take the plan, spin it
sideways

Posts: 5669
Gender: female
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #2 - Feb 26th, 2012 at 6:49am
 
I think you'll find Longweekend wrote those posts himself.

What makes you think they were plagiarised?
Back to top
 

And in a way I'm yearning
To be done with all this weighing up of truth.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth
 
IP Logged
 
The Valley Boy
Ex Member


Re: Plagiarism
Reply #3 - Feb 26th, 2012 at 7:06am
 
here are the links to both of them

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329719622

will Rudd destroy labor where he admitts that he copy it from another site

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330063157

this if you read it you will see it is not his style of writing
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Annie Anthrax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Take the plan, spin it
sideways

Posts: 5669
Gender: female
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #4 - Feb 26th, 2012 at 7:27am
 
LW occasionally writes those longer, more in depth posts. Unless you can point to the original article, I'd hold off on the plagiarism accusations.

Back to top
 

And in a way I'm yearning
To be done with all this weighing up of truth.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 8754
Gender: female
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #5 - Feb 26th, 2012 at 7:46am
 
Quote:
here are the links to both of them

will Rudd destroy labor where he admitts that he copy it from another site

this if you read it you will see it is not his style of writing



I admit when I first saw one of L/W's articles I assumed it had been plagiarised too, but then found out otherwise. It was impressive.

It looks as though he's done some sort of Communications/Media course and consequently has a different style in these more thoughtful & longer  posts compared to his everyday reactive debating posts.

That's only a guess though.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Bobby
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 22483
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #6 - Feb 26th, 2012 at 8:37am
 
mantra wrote on Feb 26th, 2012 at 7:46am:
Quote:
here are the links to both of them

will Rudd destroy labor where he admitts that he copy it from another site

this if you read it you will see it is not his style of writing



I admit when I first saw one of L/W's articles I assumed it had been plagiarised too, but then found out otherwise. It was impressive.

It looks as though he's done some sort of Communications/Media course and consequently has a different style in these more thoughtful & longer  posts compared to his everyday reactive debating posts.

That's only a guess though.




Some of his articles appear not to be plagiarised.
Most of them are but he is now including a link when he does.

I think you're not allowed to copy an entire article.
The correct way is to quote say one sentence from an article that is copyright
& then give a link to the rest of it.

That means that many people are breaking these rules all the time.

FD should monitor it more carefully.
I don't want to see this site ruined from legal action because
some ignorant person copied entire articles.
The Yanks especially -  are litigious people.
Back to top
 

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan
 
IP Logged
 
Annie Anthrax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Take the plan, spin it
sideways

Posts: 5669
Gender: female
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #7 - Feb 26th, 2012 at 8:52am
 
This is an internet forum, not an academic journal.

It's quite acceptable to quote an entire article as long as you acknowledge the original author.
Back to top
 

And in a way I'm yearning
To be done with all this weighing up of truth.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25737
I like fish
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #8 - Feb 26th, 2012 at 9:10am
 
My take on it is that you should include a link or URL. That way you direct traffic to the original article and improve it's google rank, which helps the author derive income from their work.

If you do that, they are not going to complain too hard.

It is also common courtesy for the other users of this board to save them having to google the article to figure out where you got it from and read the rest of it.

There are a few users who habitually forget. Please remind them.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 32165
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #9 - Feb 26th, 2012 at 10:30am
 
I would go along with the beat up if longy was making money out of other peoples work..

otherwise to me its nitpicking..if you are going to pick on longy you must pick on ALL..which isnt happening...

I will now be more observant
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jasignature
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3925
Scam Syd-i-knee
Gender: male
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #10 - Feb 26th, 2012 at 12:10pm
 
I would also like to add that I think anyone who doesn't make a professional advantage by something written that is considered 'plagerised' should not be held accountable.
Back to top
 

U.nited&&F.ederation of&&O.ceania&&...for all Austr-Aliens
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25737
I like fish
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #11 - Mar 1st, 2012 at 9:47pm
 
I just got a request to remove some of the content from a Mark Arbib article that was copied here - which I complied with.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Bobby
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 22483
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #12 - Mar 2nd, 2012 at 9:17am
 
Back to top
 

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan
 
IP Logged
 
blackadder
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1977
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #13 - Mar 2nd, 2012 at 3:08pm
 
Sir Bobby wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 9:17am:



You never give up do you girly.
Back to top
 

The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine - Abraham Lincoln
 
IP Logged
 
Gist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476
Re: Plagiarism
Reply #14 - Mar 2nd, 2012 at 4:29pm
 
blackadder wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 3:08pm:
Sir Bobby wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 9:17am:



You never give up do you girly.


Don't worry bobby it isn't just you. Braindeadder is hitting on everyone since his ladyboy girlfriend left him. Now nobody will talk to him!  Grin
Back to top
 

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print