<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>jenius</author><text>Yeah for me the CEO&apos;s response is the absolute worst part about this... very aggressive and defensive, he could have just said sorry we should have asked. And they definitely should have - I&apos;m sure the author wouldn&apos;t have said no.&lt;p&gt;In fact, he said on twitter: &quot; I don’t have any problem with you sharing my post. By all means! But the last two paragraphs were barely rewritten.&quot; (&lt;a href=&quot;https://twitter.com/#!/endtwist/status/202089166975148033&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https://twitter.com/#!/endtwist/status/202089166975148033&lt;/a&gt;)</text><parent_chain><item><author>petercooper</author><text>The old adage is you can&apos;t copyright facts and there was certainly no requirement for TNW to do any &quot;original research&quot; to share these findings.&lt;p&gt;However, when you copy/use facts, you wade into hot water if you also copy the structure and the way those facts were originally &lt;i&gt;expressed.&lt;/i&gt; The original TNW article shown here seems to step over that line with a barely masked copy of the original paragraphs.&lt;p&gt;What bothers me more, though, is that seemingly a CEO of a media organization has failed to do any damage control based around a genuine grievance (that wasn&apos;t even aggressively delivered). Saying things like &lt;i&gt;&quot;think it&apos;s pretty ridiculous that you&apos;re even getting the slightest bit annoyed about this&quot;&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;&quot;needless to say, we&apos;ll be staying well clear of anything ur involved with in future for fear of ridiculous reaction&quot;&lt;/i&gt; and using &lt;i&gt;&quot;u do realise that about 50% of all publications is content sourced from other publications right?&quot;&lt;/i&gt; as a sort of defence is a horrible PR line for a proprietor to play, even if that&apos;s his honest opinion.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Plagiarism</title><url>http://notes.unwieldy.net/post/23049725899/plagiarism</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>atakan_gurkan</author><text>Plagiarism is not about copyright, it is about citing properly. A direct quote has to be indicated as such, a paraphrasing has to include a reference.&lt;p&gt;I learned this in my freshman year in college, this is so basic that an &quot;editor&quot; cannot claim ignorance of these rules.</text><parent_chain><item><author>petercooper</author><text>The old adage is you can&apos;t copyright facts and there was certainly no requirement for TNW to do any &quot;original research&quot; to share these findings.&lt;p&gt;However, when you copy/use facts, you wade into hot water if you also copy the structure and the way those facts were originally &lt;i&gt;expressed.&lt;/i&gt; The original TNW article shown here seems to step over that line with a barely masked copy of the original paragraphs.&lt;p&gt;What bothers me more, though, is that seemingly a CEO of a media organization has failed to do any damage control based around a genuine grievance (that wasn&apos;t even aggressively delivered). Saying things like &lt;i&gt;&quot;think it&apos;s pretty ridiculous that you&apos;re even getting the slightest bit annoyed about this&quot;&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;&quot;needless to say, we&apos;ll be staying well clear of anything ur involved with in future for fear of ridiculous reaction&quot;&lt;/i&gt; and using &lt;i&gt;&quot;u do realise that about 50% of all publications is content sourced from other publications right?&quot;&lt;/i&gt; as a sort of defence is a horrible PR line for a proprietor to play, even if that&apos;s his honest opinion.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Plagiarism</title><url>http://notes.unwieldy.net/post/23049725899/plagiarism</url></story>