Content deleted Content added
→Sources: I'm not going to argue with you |
|||
Line 26:
::::::I bolded the relevant parts for you. Also, please take a moment to review [[WP:CIVIL]]. I'm simply here to respond to your original point. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Peterlewis is correct that self-plagiarism is not explicitly mentioned. I think it would help belay his concerns to explain ''why'' the emboldened sections justify 'self-plagiarism' as a term: Once you consider that each semi-colon delimits an alternative meaning you can see that the final meaning (''present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source'') is applicable regardless of whether the original source is your own or anothers.
:::::::I make the following observation of the posting I have directly replied to. Whilst Peterlewis's posts could both be considered inflamatory, they could also be considered sincerely ignorant of the meaning of Plagiraism. Given this, it is appropriate to give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume sincerity. PeterLewis could no doubt see that you had made sections of your response bold, so explicitly stating that truth instead of explaining ''why'' the bolded sections were relevant was akin to intellectually assaulting Peterlewis. I am of the opinion that this is an inappropriate way to respond to a comment under every circumstance, and encourage the writer to go to take greater care when considering responses to posts he feels are incorrect.
::::::Added: you could also have done a simple Google search. "Self-plagiarism" returns some 30,000 hits. [http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/Self%20plagiarism.html Here's one source.] [http://splat.cs.arizona.edu/ Here's another]. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
| |||