Talk:Conrad Celtes
|
|
Removed all content, as it was liberally plagiarized from the Catholic Encyclopedia -- not yet in public domain. PLAGIARISM IS BAD. It hurts the project and all people involved. It is a combination of lying and theft -- please don't bring it here.JHK
Plagiarism is bad and wrong but is easily fixed by citing sources. On the other hand, is it really a copyright infringement? Aren't all pre-1923 works in the public domain in the United States? When was the Catholic Encyclopedia first published?
- I'm not sure -- the web site is a mishmash or articles from different editions. Michael Tinkler is the person to ask on this -- he's one of the original transcribers. I'm also not sure if the re-issuing of older articles into what is for all intents and purposes a new, online edition, makes a difference. What I do know is that the "author" of this article has a history of cribbing and copying verbatim from websites without much consideration for copyright laws. It's very easy to put a reference at the bottom of the article -- if it's PD, it need only be a general reference (PD doesn't make it ok to pass off someone else's work as your own -- it's still plagiarism, there are just no copyright penalties). If it isn't PD, or if directly quoted, there MUST be a citation. Or there should be if we want people to take this project seriously. JHK
- I'm assuming it's PD, as 17 USC 103(b) limits what a verbatim transcription can add to the copyright. Restore with credit? --Damian Yerrick
- How 'bout, let Helga restore it with credit, since it's about time other people stopped cleaning up her messes? If it's important enough, then it will get restored. My patience on cleaning up after other people has pretty much dried up.JHK
Now that the 'author' has attempted to add sources, perhaps she would be kind enough to translate all the Latin, since the average English-speaker doesn't have a great working knowledge of that language?JHK