Somebody asked about celebrities who won’t sign autographs. I was doing some googling and I found this previous thread on the subject from 2007. And I found this column by Cindy Adams from 2013.
SDMB thread:
Cindy Adams:
SDMB thread:
SDMB thread:
Cindy Adams:
SDMB thread:
Cindy Adams:
SDMB thread:
Cindy Adams:
SDMB thread:
Cindy Adams:
SDMB thread:
Cindy Adams:
SDMB thread:
Cindy Adams:
SDMB thread:
Cindy Adams:
SDMB thread:
Cindy Adams:
SDMB thread:
Cindy Adams:
Plagiarism is a bit strong of a word for that, no? Would have been nice if she cited her sources, but it’s the NY Post - sort of par for the course.
It doesn’t seem as if she lifted posts wholesale from the Dope, just briefly summarized them. And they’re all in the third person. She doesn’t claim she was present on any of the occasions. I think plagiarism is a pretty thin claim in this instance.
Isn’t not crediting your sources pretty much one of the definitions of plagiarism?
I don’t think the copying has to be word for word in order to qualify as plagiarism. Plagiarism is taking credit for somebody else’s work.
I don’t think the copying has to be word for word in order to qualify as plagiarism. Plagiarism is taking credit for somebody else’s work.
I don’t know if it’s plagiarism. It’s as if she’d used this thread as the source for an article about people’s opinions on Irritable Bowl Syndrome: “Here’s what people are saying about IBS!” But it definitely makes her seem like a total hack writer.
Who is Cindy Adams? Is she Cecil’s daughter? Maybe that explains it…
I see what you did there. 
Is there any reason to believe the anecdotes posted to this message board are original content?
Plagiarism is not the same thing as copyright violation, but I note that you can’t copyright information, only its presentation. I’m not an expert, but I’d say Ms. Adams’s different presentation, rewording, and summarization make her article different enough from the original thread to avoid copyright violation.
That said, since she didn’t cite her source, I’d qualify it as plagiarism. Legal, but unethical.
That doesn’t matter. All of her anecdotes match up to one uncredited source.
The way I heard it was that somebody noticed what two other people had done.
I think that plagiarism is when you take credit for someone else’s work. It doesn’t need to be a word-for-word recopying.
How do we know Cindy Adams didn’t post those statements in that thread?
Anyway, sources are rarely cited in gossip columns. You can call it plagiarism if you like, Cindy Adams reputation isn’t going to suffer for it.
Which is the same thing as saying “How do we know all those different posters that said those things aren’t socks for Cindy Adams?”, which is quite an incredible accusation to put forth.
Yes, clearly that’s what I was doing, accusing one or more posters of being socks for Cindy Adams. It’s obviously a more likely explanation than Cindy Adams using the internet to look for information about celebrities who don’t sign autographs and finding that column.
True when it comes to academics, but not so much to journalism (unless they are copying word for word). Uncredited sources brought down Pres. Nixon.
An anonymous source brought down president Nixon. He was credited under a pseudonym and deliberately kept anonymous at his request.
Not the same as restructuring an entire document to pass turn-it-in and putting your name on the top as original work in your capacity as a professional journalist.
I’m really having trouble parsing this question any way other than what Czarcasm said, or understanding how your clarification relates to it. Not trying to be dense, just not understanding.