O/T- Plagiarism

[VallejoSheltie]

Not sure why this annoyed me, however here it is.

Came across the Fermented Feed threads, and someone posted a link to an excellent, indepth article which explained it in detail.
http://naturalchickenkeeping.blogspot.com/p/fermented-feed.html

After reading it, did some more googling, and came across this other article which seemed to be a rather poor attempt to repost the content as her own. I'm a pretty serious reader, and having just read the first article and then the second minutes later, it really seemed to me to be almost blatant plagiarism.
http://www.gardenbetty.com/2013/05/why-and-how-to-ferment-your-chicken-feed/

I realize this is nothing, however it ticked me off that this is how Award Winning Bloggers(tm) seem to profit from other people's work. I guess the kicker was the note at the bottom of her blog "All content herein is original and may not be reproduced without permission"

I emailed her and the original site as well, and asked her if it would have killed her to cite her sources as a courtesy.

/vent-mode

Life must be pretty good here if this is what get my dander up.

 

[cassie]

When I was in college an English student submitted a short story as his own. It wasn't. The teacher said what annoyed her even more than the fact he had copied someone else's work, was that he thought she hadn't read it. The work was a classic of some sort.

 

[Bunnylady]

I haven't read both articles in their entirety, but I read several paragraphs of both. It seems to me that neither poster is trying to act as though the "discovery" of the wonders of fermented feed is her own; they both seem to be talking about a subject that has been thoroughly discussed by others and they know it. There are only so many ways to say basically the same thing. Both posters are reflecting on why it's a good idea (not their own research, so clearly they learned about it from others - how many sources for that should one cite, and what about word of mouth?)

I know a lot of people get really worked up about "intellectual property" on the internet these days, but where does one draw the lines? As an example, I have frequently posted things regarding rabbit coat color genetics on this and other forums; should I have to cite the various authors whose books I read "way back when" that educated me on the subject? How about the high school and college textbooks (and instructors) that taught me about genetics in the first place? I once had a conversation with a man who worked with a man who did a lot of the original research on rabbit coat colors and the genes behind them - should I cite that, too?

An awful lot gets said on the computer keyboard these days, with only so much research behind it. Some of it is sound, and well worth repeating. Of course, some of what gets repeated is utter nonsense, too; hopefully those reading it have enough education to know which is which.

Can you tell that I am trapped in the house by a thunderstorm this morning?

 

[VallejoSheltie]

Bunnylady,

I probably am in agreement with you in the main.
Obviously there is always previous art/work from which one draws upon. Having to cite would be a pain and boring for all.

In this case though I feel it is a little different. From the content of her blog to some of the answers she gives to comments, it seems like
its close to verbatim what was in the original article with minimal work to rephrase.
Agreed, its not worth getting to worked up about, however this is someone who apparently won some sort of 'award', which she prominently displays on her site.
I guess this is why I really don't read bloggers in general. Either sloppy or poor synopsis' of better written articles.

Cheers