Tagged With "Plagiarism"

Topic

Plagiarism policy

Malkazoid ·
Wondering if there is a platform wide plagiarism policy yet? Is this something that niches will have to figure out for themselves, or will Narrative provide something? Its a tricky arena - important to intervene when plagiarism occurs, but it is also possible to go too far. Quora, for instance, will hide posts and negatively impact a user’s reputation simply for forgetting to link to a quote from a public figure that the user has merely paraphrased. If this is an area that needs development...
Topic

Duplicate Content Prevention and Plagiarism

Banter ·
I'm just curious if the @Narrative Network Team has thought about this. I'm hoping there will be some built in automated safeguards to find duplicate content, to prevent people from circumventing the 3 Niche max submission for content. If these protections aren't in place, content creators could just creating a 'new' piece of content, which is just a copy of another article, and submit it to additional Niches. Also, how will Narrative be dealing with people stealing content from the web...
Question

Suspect plagiarism on my niche, what can I do?

Giulia (Chrysalis) ·
For some time, there has been a member of Narrative who posts articles, even interesting ones, in my niche (Animal Behavior). At the suggestion of one of the comments in one of these posts, I went to check and found that entire paragraphs of these posts are copied from several other sites without reporting any source. Checking better, after suggesting him how to fix it, but without getting any attention from him, I deepened the researches and I discovered that it wasn't a single post but...
Announcement

Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Ted ·
Currently, the appeal system in Narrative is limited to content, comments, and niches. We're working on some improvements, however, to support reporting a member for chronic plagiarism, profile AUP violations, and potentially more in the future. Member-focused appeals will be reviewed and decided by the Tribunal. About Plagiarism Appeals We want to make sure that claims of plagiarism are not frivolous and that they are based on provable, chronic behavior. Anyone who submits an appeal against...
Question

A few questions to clarifying the new policy about canonical links

Christina Gleason ·
I posted these questions as comments on the platform announcement post, but I'm adding them here for more feedback: 1. If we're updating an old post we wrote like 10 years ago to include new information (as I've done with some of my posts that currently have canonical links) what is the policy on that? I feel like, since I've made changes (some more substantial than others) that I've re-purposed it for a new audience rather than simply copy/paste republishing. In that case, would it make...
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Harj ·
Great Point Malkazoin, Narrative is about original content and when the website launches its original content that will get the reputation and support of the community, I think those who have been on the platform the longeset tend to be the ones who create original, the new might need some time to get there heads around how that works and it can be a challenge trying to find what it is your going to be talking about esspecailly if its original! it took me ages!! to find art and crypto and stuff.
Reply

Re: Duplicate Content Prevention and Plagiarism

Rosemary ·
Definitely something under consideration, since our primary mandate is quality content. There will be some self-policing already, with Narrators able to downvote and/or report content that runs afoul of the guidelines. And yes, since people will be able to import their own content, we can't just do a straight-up "this is duplicated from something else on the web" as you correctly point out. Please keep the insights and ideas coming!
Reply

Re: Duplicate Content Prevention and Plagiarism

chrisabdey ·
This is where Niche owners and moderators will need to step in basically. (at least duplicated information from the platform) This happens on Steemit all the time - someone grabs a copy paste of a good article and posts it as their own.
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Michael ·
This is an important topic. I was just thinking about this. With 60% of revenue directed towards content creation, you can bet your money that there's already Niche owners and/or publishers that plan on mass plagiarism in order to get free money. People in developing nations that make 10 cents to 25 cents an hour for copyrighting are going to be VERY tempted to start plagiarizing if they're getting 1 or 2 dollars a month for copying someone's work. Has the Narrative team put in place some...
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Michael ·
I would like to recommend a 3-Strikes-You're-Out policy for plagiarism. Plagiarism to start off, would be simply copying a complete sentence of somebody's work without giving an attribution.
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Gord ·
Might be worth looking into incorporating something like Turnitin or iThenticate into the Narrative backend.
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

MichelleG ·
I'd go with something like Grammarly . Grammarly does spellcheck/grammar check and plagiarism check. And I'd only put it on niches, not personal pages. Not personal pages because the free-flow of online speech needs protecting as it's own form of expression. Not publications either because that's their own responsibility. But niches, standing between these as quality content rich, could use an easy grammar pass. No substitute for a human but an easy way to increase quality. As an owner, I'd...
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Gord ·
That's great @MichelleG . I had no idea Grammarly did plagiarism checking as well.
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

MichelleG ·
Yeah. it does. Of course, everybody is going to have their own opinions about software. The advantage of grammarly is that it does both tasks. The disadvantage is that doubles (or maybe quadruples) the chances folks won't find it adequate. However, partnering with them at least for now provides the opportunity for a turnkey resource for moderators.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Bashar Abdullah ·
Thanks @Ted . Definitely a welcome and needed move. In my personal opinion, asking user to provide 5 total plagiarism in one report though would be tedious job requiring users to act as police and keep report, by which time the abuser might see which posts are obviously getting marked as low and remove them. Any chance this would turn into if user is reported for plagiarism 5 times, he automatically gets investigated? Would make things a lot more efficient.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Robert Nicholson ·
I agree, that 5 seems like it's too high. After all, most members have better things to do than check other posts for plagiarism. I do think this is a big step in the right direction, and something that is needed. But I'd suggest that the number required to make a claim of plagiarism should be more like 2 or 3. If a person has been caught plagiarizing 2 or 3 times, it's pretty clear that they know what they are doing. And there are probably a lot more instances that simply haven't been caught.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Heidi Hecht ·
Five examples might seem a bit high, but if someone's a chronic plagiarizer, it shouldn't be hard to find 5 examples in a row. Perhaps the team could add a system where, if it looks like a case where someone just forgot to properly credit a picture or something, the person who notices it could just drop a PM to the post owner so the post owner can check it out. Good on the team for being willing to combat fake reports of plagiarism.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Bashar Abdullah ·
It's not hard, but it is time consuming. Today I see a guy stealing content. So I put him on my radar. After few days I check. He has 4 stolen posts. I open a note to keep this, and wait for the fifth strike. Meanwhile I have seen 10 other people plagiarising. The process of reporting abusing members is a lot harder than it is for members to steal content. This manual work need to be cut to encourage more reporting. That, or give big incentive for reporting such cases, as it's tedious task...
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Robert Nicholson ·
We had in instance of a person who was posting artwork from other people as his own. As I understand it, he was warned not to do this. At that point, he started cropping small portions of other people's paintings, and posting these small, low-res images. It made it VERY hard to find the originals that he was stealing. Even so, a member tracked down one of the originals. My point is that there was an individual who was knowingly stealing artwork from other people, but he was also covering his...
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Heidi Hecht ·
OK, I can see how that would be a problem. Normally I'd suggest doing a reverse image search, but if this member is modifying the pictures in any way, that could become danged near impossible unless you already have a good idea of where to start looking. My chief concern was that, if the standards of plagiarism were too low, then we would have a lot of problems with people making false reports or members' accounts being barred from receiving rewards when they did nothing more than copy...
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Garden Gnome Publications ·
I agree with @Robert Nicholson that 5 is too high a number. I'm glad to see this direction, however. I would recommend three examples. If someone plagiarizes three times, they're doing consciously. Kudos for introducing this process, @Ted .
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Malkazoid ·
As others have mentioned - great that we're doing *something*. I also agree the thresholds are way too lenient. Instead of 5 provable instances of plagiarism (wow...) - please consider the following system. 1) A post is downvoted for plagiarism (will require a specific downvote reason for this, rather than it being lumped in the AUP violation downvote reason), and the poster receives an automated email from Narrative, alerting them to the downvote, and explaining to them what constitutes...
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Garden Gnome Publications ·
I like @Malkazoid 's suggestion.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Christina Gleason ·
What @Malkazoid said, because of the labor expected from users as described by @Bashar Abdullah , and the example given by @Robert Nicholson . My rewards went down SIGNIFICANTLY in June because I was spending/wasting so much time investigating suspected plagiarism, commenting with a link to the plagiarized material, and then getting downvoted like crazy for doing so. I'm already taking a financial hit for the amount of work I'm currently doing to help monitor the plagiarism situation,...
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Robert Nicholson ·
Here's a thought. I think Ted's original proposal places too much burden on an individual to make a case, and I frankly don't see many people doing that. One the other hand suppose the Downvote dialog had an option for plagiarism, which required the down-voter to fill in the URL of the original source. That's not a great burden on the person reporting. The system could keep track of the number of different posts from a user that had been flagged for plagiarism. Once a threshold is reach...
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Malkazoid ·
I think this is also an improvement on the current plan. What it lacks compared to my proposal, is an opportunity to automatically alert the poster, neutrally via a platform email, that there seems to be a plagiarism issue with their posting, giving them a chance to rectify and walk the straight and narrow from then on, or to defend themselves. My proposal also allows the community to be the first assessors of the defense, possibly avoiding the need for the Tribunal to be involved at all. If...
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Bashar Abdullah ·
@Malkazoid That's a good plan as well. User should get nofified. The one thing I don't think we should be doing is giving user chance to fix a stolen article though. He stole an article, someone spends time to find out, user gets an email, he alters the text to make it not so. I can understand if it's just one photo in long article, but to give a chance to remedy stolen articles means we have to work forever with these plagiarizers.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Banter ·
Thanks, @Ted ! I do think this is a step in the right direction. I agree with many of the commenters here that 5 instances is way too high. I prefer @Malkazoid 's proposal combined with @Robert Nicholson 's approach. The reporter of the violation would have a specific downvote option and be required to provide a link to the material in question. If the user fails to defend themselves, or is found to be at fault...they get a strike, along with the removal of rewards for that post. That being...
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Colleen Ryer ·
This is really welcome news @Ted @Christina Gleason makes good points. Not more than 3 offenses, automating contact and a special downvote with a link to plagiarized content would be great additions. Locking rewards if a plagiarism vote or report is made, until it's resolved, and forfeit of rewards on plagiarized posts I also agree with.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Robert Nicholson ·
I didn't mean to ignore or downplay your proposal. My own idea just sort popped into my head. As an engineer myself, the reason it appealed to me is that it would be trivial to implement . It would also be very easy to automatically generate a message to the poster any time a post was downvoted for plagiarism.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Banter ·
I think the problem with the automated approach is that you would have to setup this whole negotiation system for the user to say...oops...didn't mean to....let me change that....or sorry won't happen again....in either case it should count as a first warning or strike regardless of whether they change it in my opinion. I think the only way an automated solution would work is if you had a dedicated role, like a moderator pool, but composed of voted on high quality members', that would handle...
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Colleen Ryer ·
I think @Malkazoid @Robert Nicholson 's ideas would stop a lot of problem posts before anything wound up at the tribunal, while still making sure people don't wind up punished when the don't deserve it. Setting up the automated system is once, and doesn't depend on any one member for reporting.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Robert Nicholson ·
Re-read my post. The flags for plagiarism would not be referred to the tribunal until a threshold was reached... a certain number (3? 5?) of posts flagged for plagiarism. Prior to that, warning messages could be sent to the user, but the tribunal would only be involved when a number of post had been flagged. I think this would be very simple to implement, and it would not require a lot of effort on the part of member to report plagiarism.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Banter ·
The problem is as soon as you report it to the user, they will have the ability to change the post, and as far as I know, narrative isn't storing a post history...so now you have a piece of content that has been flagged that may have been changed so it doesn't violate. Do they just never get punished because they always change the posts that are caught??
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Malkazoid ·
How about we lock the post as soon as the threshold of copyright violation votes has been reached. Then if the poster chooses to fix the post, they can work on a copy of it generated by the system, but can not modify the original.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Colleen Ryer ·
Persistent plagiarizing is the target in HQ's appeal method, and since removing or editing posts isn't allowed, is relying on the the profile flagged for plagiarism good enough, or is a lock down needed? We own our posts. Is the company or the community tribunal allowed to lock a post so that the owner can't remove their property? Or, since there's a question if the poster actually is the owner, is locking down permitted until it's decided either way? An automated message - one that points...
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Malkazoid ·
I don't think it would necessarily be a deterrent for people who are plagiarising on purpose... They'd just take it as a sign to open a new account and keep on keeping on. There is no ethical problem with locking a post for the duration of a plagiarism process. If it turns out there was no problem, then the post can be unlocked. If it turns out there was a problem and the user opts to fix it by editing the copy, then the copy can replace the original.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Colleen Ryer ·
No, it wouldn't be a deterrent for the ones intent on this. Just a way to let people who either don't understand the rules, or thought they could get away with something a chance to learn - and reduce the burden on the tribunal. And the reporting community. And sure, if posts can be locked, then I agree, they should be. Unfortunately, the serial account opener is a problem no matter what the approach.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Malkazoid ·
True! The serial account opener is something we don't know how to combat. On the face of things, the only way to combat it is with universal certification, which itself is very problematic, especially because of the cost.
Reply

Re: Expanding the scope of appeals to include members

Colleen Ryer ·
Missed this https://www.narrative.org/post...content-review-queue
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Jeroenski74 ·
Hi @Malkazoid and @Harj I'm also looking how to use content on a positive way, but which already exists. I have the niche Lyrics to talk about Lyrics but also to have the Lyrics as content. A lot of it already exists so putting it on the niche it can be considered as plagiarism. I know Lyrics can be written and corrected by anybody on most of the websites and there are many websites having the same Lyrics and I don't know any plagiarism cases there, but I want to keep 'rewarding the original...
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Malkazoid ·
Hi @Jeroenski74 congratulations on your first steps towards an outside collaboration for your niche - sounds exciting. I don’t have any particular insight for you other than that anyone will be able to buy, send and receive NRVE once it is on exchanges. Even before then, I think you can send someone NRVE right now from your wallet? They just need to have a Neo wallet themselves - which is super easy to set up. But Michael Farris can tell you if I’ve got that right, and he may have more...
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Jeroenski74 ·
Thanks @Malkazoid for your fast reply. I know we can send or receive NVRE ourselves right now as we have bougth Niches both you and me , but in order to make this work it should be somehow integrated between Narrative and LyricsFind since they only have a model to pay a yearly fee at once and in the beginning I will not have to money to pay for it on my own. I like your idea of the bonds, but this will be a community bond, such that we can pay the yearly fee up front and use it together per...
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Emad ·
Open minded 💡
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Dr. Rick ·
I agree @Harj , was also thinking that when new users do join we need to make sure we communicate the policies of Narrative to them and not put them off by marginalising them for honest mistakes whilst they are learning.
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Malkazoid ·
Hi @Jeroenski74 I may not completely understand what the flow of the proposal is you have made to LyricsFind, so it is difficult to comment. My impression is that it is very early days for Narrative to be thinking of developing NRVE payment solutions to third parties. This would probably require an API, and we're not even in Alpha on the release platform yet. But I am in no way a representative of Narrative or its dev team - just sharing my impression with you. Let's talk about your business...
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Dennis ·
LyricsFind will probably keep it's own UI, but can connect, post also on Narrative to use it as a comment / blog. Just start from there. In future we are talking about digital assets (lyric) belonging to a certain person (ID) and get paid out directly. So future wise LyricsFind can jump on the digital assets blockchain as a dApp on Narrative using this niche. End users (the owners of the lyric) can be payed out in NRVE, but I doubt it on the short term. They probably wants to get paid in...
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Jeroenski74 ·
Hi @Malkazoid and @Dennis , thanks for your input. They have an API indeed and they have two different fee models. I think your idea of them being a content creator themselves could be a solution, I will take that into the discussion. This is indeed something I have to write down first. Reading your post I get the feeling you know a lot more about the 'NEO verse' and the different features the NEO platform supports like ID's, Digital assets, so if you can help me on this area you are more...
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Madhanic ·
Would using your own content that you posted elsewhere consider as self-plagiarism?
Reply

Re: Plagiarism policy

Malkazoid ·
Hehe - well I'm assuming you're having a chuckle with this... but if you're not, the answer is no. Self-plagiarism isn't a thing, because you own copyright to your own materials. There can however be issues if you have signed an agreement with a publisher that grants exclusivity to them. Depending on the agreement, this may exclude you from publishing your materials elsewhere for the duration of the agreement, or for some other stipulated period of time.
 
×
×
×
×