[split] Quoting Full Articles

[Violet]

Minimalist, can you please link to the source. We discourage posting whole articles.

"We"?

I actually much prefer it, as it allows me to not spend several minutes loading another web page (When at home), keeps me away from potential viruses, and my opinion on the matter is very similar to http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387 (and especially if his source was noted, which it was).

[Eilonnwy]

We do, plus you can always use text and create a hyperlink using the url tags

It's bad form to reproduce another one's article in entirety on another website, so we discourage it.

We as in the admins and moderators.

[Violet]

We do, plus you can always use text and create a hyperlink using the url tags

You could if you wanted to... but why not just provide a link to the source and copy?

It's bad form to reproduce another one's article in entirety on another website, so we discourage it.

I don't see why this is bad form at all. Changing how many characters are in a quote doesn't change the fact that we do this with every quote, nor do I see why it should matter wether a quote from another be long or short, as you haven't changed the process undergone in either case.

We as in the admins and moderators.

All of them?

And even if so... would many of the members agree?

[Eilonnwy]

It's about the fact that revenue is often accrued through page hits, when you reproduce an article wholesale, the author loses out. It's bad form as far as referring to sources go, and also makes posts look horrendous.

It's a minor thing, Minimalist corrected it and we're good. Why are you dragging this out? It's clearly stated in the rules. http://atheistforums.org/rules.php

Please drop it.

[Violet]

It's about the fact that revenue is often accrued through page hits, when you reproduce an article wholesale, the author loses out.

Whereas this would be different from not bothering to visit their page at all because one doesn't want to bother with going to their site?

If it's that much of a problem... perhaps a sort of "middle ground" could be considered better form? (Ie: copy half of their statements, and if someone's even interested in the other half include the link with the words "read more" (or the like?))

Shouldn't the author be posting it in multiple places anyway? And why would the author necessarily need to accumulate revenue via this method (IE: associated presses, as with newspapers (which sell offline and often print in multiple places) like the one Minimalist quoted)?

Also, if one really wants to get page hits, they can go to forums, facebook, and the like to advertise their existence (usually in the form of a link, which would be a page hit)... so shouldn't it only be a problem to those without much social presence (which can firstly be built up to, and secondly what someone writing an article they intend to make money on should have in the first place)?

It's bad form as far as referring to sources go, and also makes posts look horrendous.

I don't see why it is bad form... i reference the quoting example from above. As for posts looking horrendous (due to length?), the hidetag™ should work fine

It's a minor thing, Minimalist corrected it and we're good. Why are you dragging this out? It's clearly stated in the rules. http://atheistforums.org/rules.php

Please drop it

I don't see any strong reasons for it, and so I'm asking for strong reasons. If you don't want to answer me: the questions remain.

[Eilonnwy]

You want a strong reason? Copying someone's entire article is copyright infringement. Plain and simple. Quoting an article as a source and linking back is fair use.

These are fairly basic rules of using sources and plagiarism.

People seem to think that because it's on a website, it's free for all. That's not true. Revenue is produced through page hits because of Ads. That's how I make money on Examiner.com. I was trying to explain the direct result of that copyright infringement, since people seem to not quite get it.

Split because the other thread was veering horribly off topic.

[theVOID]

I absolutely agree that every off-site source should be linked to, have a small section of the main article and then link the the rest.

If you absolutely have to post the whole thing (for example the source was an email) then ffs use the [/hide] tag.

[Eilonnwy]

Yes.

For further reading, here's a great article on the 10 myths of copyright.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

[Tiberius]

Plus, I don't want pre-existing articles wasting space in the database. It slows down the loading of the thread in question, and as Eilonnwy and others have stated, it just looks messy.