We live today in a world where the internet is very popular, people follow a lot and take into account what they see on the net, what other internet sites tell them. It is very common to think that we have X or Y disease without having to go to a doctor, just do a Google search or, in the best case, visit Wikipedia. In today's world what appears and read on the internet directly influences our lives.
Online Reputation
If we are doing a search on the internet and we read a site that misleads us, that has erroneous information, it is not very common to seek a second opinion, we simply assume that 'that' we read for the first time is true. Let's be honest and say, how many of you read something on the internet and look for a 2nd and 3rd opinion on other sites? It is a rare practice, because I repeat, the majority accept and assume as something completely true the first thing they read almost anywhere 🙂 In fact, there are other sites or companies on the net whose 'business' is precisely what we are talking about (example, companies as www.sidn.es or others), your business is to establish some kind of credibility (which is appreciated, if these types of rankings did not exist, the network would be chaos) of sites based on their web positioning (SEO), their AlexaRank or PageRank, incidentally, the same PageRank Google is a reputation system for sites.
What I am trying to say is, we must consider what we read and where we read to it. Something said by a user in Taringa or another forum does not have to be true, something that we read in Wikipedia itself, has much more credibility. It is important to know how to recognize a site that can be reliable, reading articles about it, seeing the way in which the administrator of the site expresses himself, its design (a site full of colors and fireworks is not very serious, is it?) , etc.
And most importantly, not always stay with the first opinion, always read from various sources (sites) about what we want to know, and then draw our own conclusions.
Copy / Paste on the network
Have you ever wondered how much original content is actually on the internet? One of the many bad practices that we can find is precisely the copy / paste, which to explain it simply, is nothing more than copying X information (article, tutorial, etc.) from one site and pasting it in another. How does this benefit the network?
It has happened to me that I find sites on the Internet that replicate, copy 100% of the articles of DesdeLinux, regardless of whether they are really useful tutorials, opinion posts (like this one), etc., anything. They are sites that automatically copy the content of DesdeLinux and they put it there, most of them at the end put something like:
Source: DesdeLinux
Add a link to DesdeLinux and voila, apparently this is enough, right?
I speak of DesdeLinux because it is the place that occupies me, but I know that our colleague Yoyo it has also gone (or goes through) the same thing.
There is a reality, if the content is replicated, it is copied from the original site to 3 other sites, then there will be 4 sites on the internet that have it, which makes it easier to find that article for interested people who search on Google. But!Is this really positive or fair? For example, visits obtained by those other sites in the articles are visits less than the site and original author of that article gets, and let's not be too humble ... it is true that when we see that an article of ours has had many visits, a lot of acceptance , this motivates us to want to write more and more. I mention the visits not to mention the comments, and Yoyo spoke to us a little in this article, which I recommend you read.
In short, the web has grown a lot since one or two decades ago, we find a lot of useful content, yes, let's try to generate more useful and interesting content, not be replicating or copying that of others. You have a website? … Do you want to succeed? … Then simply write articles that you consider of interest to others, yes, but above all, try to create on your site 'that' that does not exist in others, this is how you will truly gain loyal readers, who will follow your publications.
Linux sites in English
Perhaps in other fields such as medicine or agriculture it is not like this, but when it comes to technology, 99% of the time that 'novelty' or 'discovery' is announced first in English, then it appears on other sites in other Languages.
Linux sites in Spanish there are many, many, there are many of us who read Linux sites in English to keep abreast of what is happening in the world, then we put the news with our words, our interpretation of it and personal opinion in our site in Spanish.
Precisely to avoid the copy / paste of other sites in Spanish, which I told you about above, that is why many of us prefer to read news in English, performance reports, etc. Sites to visit or add to our RSS can be phoronix.com, Slashdot.org, the same google news, etc. It's a matter of finding sites that publish content of interest to us, content that is objective 🙂
The end!
I'm not used to writing opinion articles, however I think it is always a good time to advocate for good practices and good habits.
Doing copy / paste I think harms the web and not only that, it harms the SEO (online reputation) of the site you are trying to grow, instead of copying from others, why better not try to be as good or better than others? For this, simply share useful, interesting things on your site, yes, but that these 'things' do not already exist on other sites. For example, a tutorial on a certain application, there will be a tutorial for that application on other sites but it will not be the same as yours, try to make yours better, original, unique.
Also, if you want to share interesting news, you can visit sites in English and then put that news with your words, or read the same news from several sites in Spanish and then put it on your site but with your own, personal approach.
regards
In general, it does not bother me that my articles are copied, as long as my name, the source and the corresponding link of my blog are mentioned. I find many of my articles on other websites, but this is my name and the url of my blog. That means if they liked my article, they will visit my blog for more. Copy / paste doesn't bother me. Greetings, good article.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting 🙂
I agree with you, I have come across articles from my blog on other sites like Taringa and others that had made a copy / paste, I thought that by putting the copier the source towards my original article it benefited me a little for the positioning. but I had not thought about it from the point of view you explain. In my case, my blog focuses on Linux, Ubuntu and web design with courses and tutorials written entirely by me, although I have informed myself from various sources to do them and the approach I give them is to try to explain everything as simple as possible for any user I can carry them out, that I want it to be my personal signature so to speak.
Very good article, like almost everyone, a greeting and continue like this 😀
Taringa is one of those sites that (in my view of course) harm blogs / sites, I am not against sharing information, but ... is it hard to put an extract of the post on Taringa and at the end something like: «If you want to know more visit the original post»(With link to the original post)… I don't know, that's how I see it better 🙁
Thanks for the comment
That would be nice too, although I see it as an elegant way to copy / paste: D.
A pretty good way that I have seen to avoid the vices you mention is to do a brief weekly analysis of several blogs, trying to find a source that is the most original and creative in terms of content.
I do not know if those of us who think about it more or less like you, we managed to avoid the star news of the moment that could overwhelm the readers (this is like the operation out of Easter that nobody pays attention to the "leaving in stages" XD) .
Good
In my blog I think I should have used the «Source: DesdeLinux» a couple of times, but I don't think in any of the cases it was with a copy and paste.
If I see an interesting article (here or anywhere else), I try it for myself, and I write the article myself. And as a show of respect, I say where I get it from.
1) It seems that you got up on the left foot and entered taringa and found an article of yours. I know that feel bro.
2) I almost always look for different points of view regarding the same news, but if the coincidence is huge, I accept what they say with a greater risk of being wrong.
3) Sometimes I wonder where the idea of "copying is not stealing" that those who fight against anti-piracy measures that threaten freedom of expression and knowledge so claim ends.
Excellent, I agree with you.
This post seemed great to me.
http://gnulibre.com/posts/presentacin/102/Pensamiento-no-critica-.html
My opinion about the Copy / Paste on the net in a forum, when an answer is given it is very good practice to put the link of the site, because you make it go up to art. in search engines. But…. It is also very good practice to make a copy & paste of the procedure that gives rise to the solution, because it usually happens that these blog after a while, are removed from the web. On more than one occasion I have come across «... I found the solution in http://blablabla… »And when you follow the link you find a 404 error.
On the issue of someone copying and pasting an article in textual form and below put a source with the link of the original article, it seems to me that it is not correct since the source is given when one writes something with one's own text and puts the authors of which I use to reinforce his knowledge on the subject. That is to say in the source the art. original and the art result are not the same.
If I make a verbatim copy of an article, appearing as the author of said art. and I put that the source of art. is art. original actually I'm plagiarizing.
From my point of view, in these cases they should put at the beginning of art. «This art. is a verbatim copy of art. http://blablablabla… Whose author is so and so »
in this last way I do not see bad that there is copy and paste since as I mentioned, over time the blog falls and many times with them their information.
PS: it wouldn't be bad if desdelinux have a planet with rss from other blogs of friends or interest
I very much agree with your topic and I am one of those who if I see a good article that can benefit those who read my pages, I do the famous "copy / paste" that if respecting the originality without modifying anything and in the end I quote the source with link to it; If I don't agree very much or I think it can be improved, I do my research and publish the improvements, but in the end I place where I took the data from, I think it is the most correct and gentlemanly thing to avoid appropriating other people's ideas and works.
This does not mean that I do not make my own articles, with my own sources and with images taken directly from my work so that they see the originality and the difference with those that I bring from other sites.
I am not aware of how many people read or follow me because it would go against my principles since that is a way to inflate the ego and I have already overcome that stage, nor do I expect that everyone who reads me will leave a comment because 99 % do not do it, due to laziness or lack of courtesy, they are people who parasitize and nothing else but that is another matter.
You are right, I have come across articles from my website on other websites and sometimes they do not put a link that says where they got the information from, they think that if they do not put that one will not notice and that the readers of their site will say that are original of them.
I am with you Gara although if you want to create a website and your content is original and they do not comment on you, that does not mean that you copy.-
Copy / paste is beneficial as well as harmful
If it weren't for the copy/paste with proper sources, I wouldn't have found these excellent sites. (DesdeLinux, MuyLinux, UsemosLinux, etc.), it is also good to know that the article has been seen by the reader, either on the "original" site or on the site that made the copy/paste.
Tremendous article Alejandro. Excellent !!! +100
Excellent article, right now I am going to copy and paste it on my blog.
Of course keeping the link to the original source.
I agree with many of the points discussed in the article, on the internet there is so much information, knowledge and available to everyone. One must learn to discriminate and classify what is relevant and what is not.
Taringa, is full of fraudulents unable to write their own article. but it is impossible to pretend that they do not copy and paste entire articles ... this is the internet.
it is also not ethical to repel copy / paste ... it would be a way of stinging and preventing the free distribution of information. remember that your articles (many really excellent) contain information, that information can lead to new knowledge in whoever reads it. and knowledge cannot be denied to anyone.
from my point of view, simply citing the original source "as appropriate" is enough to "thank you" for the information.
The internet is made of copy and paste, it has its pros and cons.
To share or not to share?
They criticize taringa but they do not criticize shaking me that takes the comments.
SOLUTION:
REMEMBER THAT FOR THIS THERE ARE LICENSES AND COPYRIGHT ...
BUT YOU LIKE TO BE COPIED THEN CHANGE YOUR LICENSE AND PUT IT COPYRIGHT ... THAT SIMPLE.
In my opinion, copying and pasting harms the person who copies more, search engines identify the date they were published and can determine which is a copy of another or what they call duplicate content.
I think that if your content is being copied, in the end the beneficiary is you, because they are giving more relevance to your content and if they place the source with a link to your site it is even better.
Strongly agree with reading sites in English and taking them as a reference when creating our content, as long as we print our point of view on it.
Personally in my blog I have recreated other articles of others but I always clarify at the beginning, who is the author, what are the parts that I have modified and the link of the original article.
I believe in copying and sharing, but adding points of view from the edition, or from the problem of a different user, let me explain, there are many tutorials that take some steps for granted, and these must be explained, ending these articles in something else than a copy and paste, if not in a derivation, but never forgetting the original source
Luckily, I write it by hand on my website, and I rarely use extracts or copypastes. As for Taringa, it's a pastebin on steroids.
On the other hand, there are other people who usually have a statement to support this act, such as the low durability of blogs because they are not well managed and things like that, although that is precisely what The Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive and many other sites tasked with rescuing these once-lost websites.
At least, the effort of the Wikimedia Foundation to give a space to those who want to do tutorials thanks to Wikibooks is appreciated.
Well, I am strange, because sometimes I spend looking for opinions on a topic on the internet all afternoon to make sure of the veracity of the information.
regards
I believe in free information and its free flow as well. The content of the article matters to me more than what site it came from or who wrote it. Undoubtedly these last two things are important, to obtain more material if you want to delve into the subject at hand.
The copy and paste I do not see bad. Even not citing the source I do not find it bad if the intention is to share your content and not take credit for someone else's work. In the case of large media or pages that have a great economic reward (I am not talking about the magazines or pages that barely survive with a commercial advertisement), I am absolutely opposed, because those organizations, although they share the material, are looking for something further and do not have a Genuine sharing idea, but they see if the thing sells or not.
I think it should be taken more as a thing of pride in how your article liked a person or considers it good enough to share it in its entirety. It seems to me that this page has a lot of collaborative work that others can learn from to generate more content such as one of your ideas.
The language barrier is quite important and it takes years to learn English for those of us who have not had the opportunity to learn it in a better way. Although it is quite good at communicating between people, English often ends up imposing the vision of mainly First World people who are at the forefront on issues like this, relegating other people for their knowledge of the language. They are a very good source for objective topics (version 1.0 of X software came out), but be careful with their opinions, because it seems to me that they are very far from the reality of, at least, Latin America.
Take a look at the page rebelion.org that does a lot of copy / paste, but it gives a great source of news from different fields and thanks to it I have known many pages of Linux and other things. I know that perhaps it could be a very special example and not what you focus on Taringa.
Do not forget that although the articles that are written here are pretty good for the most part, the community that comments and becomes a sporadic or permanent writer is what gives strength to this and other pages.
Without the "cheeky" copy / paste, I wouldn't have known this page.
The truth is that this paragraph of your comment catches my attention «The copy and paste is not bad. Even not citing the source I do not find it bad if the intention is to share its content and not to attribute the work of another person.
And how do you do that? If you do not quote the author or his website, what do you do, put a notice saying "Attention: I do not cite the source because the information is free, but this text is not mine, it belongs to someone else ..."
What is published on the Internet, or wherever, has a license. If the author of the article does not specify any, it is understood that you are free to do what you want with the content, (the case of «desde linux» curiously, at least I don't see the license anywhere).
But if the license requires you to cite the source and acknowledge the author, then that's what you should do, period, comply with the license specifications, there are no more stories.