Dueling Cut-and-Paste?

[Haggis McBagpipe]

Whereas the occasional use of c&p is a great way to support/augment an opinion in a debate, I find that the practice loses a good deal of power when it is used excessively and/or in lieu of a written personal opinion formed from reading said articles.

Some threads on this forum seem to be nothing but a debate between two opposing c&ps, a furious frenzy of lofty opinions written by others. You can scan such a thread for an actual word written by the forum members involved, and come up quite empty-handed.

This strikes me as lazy, for it is much easier to search and cut and paste than to form an opinion derived from reading off-site material then putting that opinion into words of one's own.

Then again, my dislike for cut-and-paste could well be only because I prefer to hear what other forum members think about current events, and to possibly follow a link to see what story has caused you to form such an opinion. For the news itself, I like to choose my own sources. In other words, I come to the forum for dialogue with other 'regular' people, and I read news sources for the news.

As I say, posting a link (as opposed to incessant cutting and pasting) to an article is good, but a forum can soon become not much more than a news service of sorts if it becomes too saturated with cut-and-pasted articles from other sources.

I think, too, that many people might hesitate before posting their view when they are up against, rather than a fellow forum member, the critical thinking and expertise of, say, a Globe & Mail or a BBC columnist. It would be akin to playing tennis against an Olympic gold medalist.

This, however, is merely an observation, and is in no way meant to suggest that cutting and pasting should be stopped. It I'd be curious to hear what others think, though. Do people like cut and paste? Do they prefer to be given a link to visit if and when they wish? Do others also prefer to read the actual views of forum members instead of articles from off-site?

 

[researchok]

I tend to agree with you-- links are far more efficient.

Still, there can be times where a thread started by a 'cut and paste' does make it easier to 'get things going'.

 

[peapod]

Its also one hell of a bore! unless its a monty python song.

 

[researchok]

I live to bore

 

[American Voice]

It's the same old story for me, I'm afraid. I find this tiny font a chore to read, and if the post is too long, to avoid getting an eyestrain headache, I quit reading.

There are a couple of members whose topics I simply pass over, because I know it's most likely going to be something excessive in length. I suppose I could copy and paste into Word, and enlarge the font there, a more readable one with serifs, and I have on occasion done that. But that's too much like work.

Another gripe is the excessive use of the quote. Way too much redundancy.

 

[vista]

Should it be copy and paste

Yes the copying can get long.

But too, often people don't go to the links and read the supporting material but then continue the discussion.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

Should it be copy and paste

Yes the copying can get long.

But too, often people don't go to the links and read the supporting material but then continue the discussion.

True, the material is copied, but it is cut from the other source and pasted here. Semantically speaking, it can be called copied or it can be called cut-and-paste, or most accurately of all, it can be called 'unauthorized use of copyright material'.

I think it's fine if people don't go to the links but still want to continue the discussion. I suspect that few people actually read the cut-and-paste either, they just scan it (I know that's what I do, especially if it is something cut from a questionable source).

 

[moghrabi]

Should it be copy and paste


True, the material is copied, but it is cut from the other source and pasted here. Semantically speaking, it can be called copied or it can be called cut-and-paste, or most accurately of all, it can be called 'unauthorized use of copyright material'.

It is authorized if you put the link of the article within the material.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

It is authorized if you put the link of the article within the material.

Okay, well, I cannot dispute that, for I do not know. Although I will say, critics who use excerpts when reviewing books get permission first, I believe, so it seems odd that copyright law would be so much more relaxed online.

I can only speak for myself, but I come here to read the wonderful and varied opinions of CanCon forum members. I like to read what they have extracted from various articles, I like to read the opinion they have drawn from their research. I am decidedly not impressed with someone who, in lieu of having to pen their own thoughts, simply posts the words of others.

That said, there are certainly times when I appreciate a link to an interesting site. As I say, it is the overuse that I question, not the occasional supportive use. Further, I must reiterate that this is only my own view, I do not wish to suggest that there be an end of cut-and-paste per se just because I don't like excessive amounts of it.

 

[vista]

That's my impression. If it is posted than people will at least scan it to get an idea of what the individual is referring to.

I have been involved with other groups were is it verboten to post anything more than a short clip followed by the link.

Problem is - no one checks the full articles then they continue as if they read the info.

Circular discussion. People have to go back and reiterate what no one read and what supports their opinion...

 

[moghrabi]

I agree. It can get a bit long. But you intially have to post the article you are trying to have a discussion about. I don't think alink will be good since once they go to the website they may wonder in there and the post loses it value. It is my opinion.

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

I agree. It can get a bit long. But you intially have to post the article you are trying to have a discussion about. I don't think alink will be good since once they go to the website they may wonder in there and the post loses it value. It is my opinion.

I can see that, yes, but I suspect that anyone who feels strongly about what they've read will come back to post a response. What I prefer to see - and again, this is just one view - is a link with at least one paragraph written by the person posting the link, a brief idea about the link plus a brief personal summation.

I'm not sure you really have to post the article you're trying to have a discussion about. If one were to read the article then write their own thoughts on the subject, taking key points and commenting on them, for example, would that not work as well? It is more effort, but the rewards seem potentially greater and the intended audience more appreciative and more receptive.

I suppose in the final analysis there is room for both. Trouble is, I often see forum become almost exclusively cut-and-paste, because people don't feel qualified to critically respond to it and therefore respond in kind with further cut-and-paste. I do know this: too much c&p can kill a forum in no time flat. I've seen it happen.

 

[moghrabi]

agreed.

 

[LuShes]

I think...(also cuz I'm a moderator and have to clean forums...) start the topic, see if other people are interested in talking about it, if so, then cut and paste till your hearts delight. But if no one is interested in that topic, then its another topic to clean up.

moghrabi
I appreciate the fact that you take the time to find articles and post them and many others. But how about you create your own entire thread, so if anyone wants to go thru and read articles and discuss them, we all know where they are

I think everyone here, no matter what they do, plays an important role in this forum and keeping it alive and welcoming for other users to make a home at

 

[moghrabi]

Thanks LuShes.

First, we missed you here.

Second, How do I creat my own thread. Would be under politics or news and another one under computers. I appreciate your help in this since I live on this forum now.

Thanks

 

[Haggis McBagpipe]

Hey Moghrabi, I hope you didn't think I was referring directly to you. I wasn't. I meant it as a general comment only, and only to be taken as my personal feeling on the matter, not as 'the way it should be'.

 

[Administration]

The best solution from now on is copying the first couple paragraphs of said article, and continue to include a link to the original article. Another thing you could do is clip and quote certain points of an article. In respect for the original author of the article, it should be noted that in Canada, we have Fair Dealing rules. It is also not fair to the author to be distributing their article without their consent.

Additionally, as moghrabi noted, just providing a link at the beginning and/or the end of the article does not fall within the fair use and fair dealing rules of North America. It is unauthorised distribution of such articles. It is not legally allowed. Please keep this in mind.



From now on, we should be a little more careful of posting full articles and keep in mind that, although it may seem important to you, the topics you post articles about may be overdone and just killing certain forums.


Remember, we are a small community and not everybody has the time to read 10 threads containing articles about Israel or Stephen Harper (just examples).

 

[moghrabi]

Hey Moghrabi, I hope you didn't think I was referring directly to you. I wasn't. I meant it as a general comment only, and only to be taken as my personal feeling on the matter, not as 'the way it should be'.

I never took it that way at all. Not to worry. But I still agree you are right.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Something else links provide, as opposed to C&P, is some context for the article. I pay a lot more attention to things from a source I know and trust. There are other things where I want to have a look at what else they are publishing to see what their standards are before I trust anything they say too much.