When no one is in charge of watching over those who watch over us, they roam freely, believing the kings of the place. - Anonymous
I think that the phrase with which this article begins is quite representative of what I am going to show you next, about a project that calls itself anti-plagiarist but which, as far as I am concerned, has shown a total lack of knowledge about the world of plagiarism and its norms, as well as a total lack of impartiality and professional ethics.
It all started when the group accused the user @zeleiracordero of having committed aberrant plagiarism. At first I was surprised, because I know the trajectory of this user but, as in these cases you never know, this warning alerted me and led me to put myself to investigate the case myself.
For everyone to know (as I let this group know) I use a plagiarism detection program that has quite good criticism: it's called Dupli Checker. and compares texts of up to 1,000 words with everything it finds similar on the net.
In addition, as its own website indicates and is something that I agree with, plagiarism detection programs are faster and more effective against manual detection since, in addition, in the human can be given factors that cloud that precision such as factors of a personal nature, of the antipathy type, hatred, eagerness to find more to be able to get daily reports (as is the case of this group, which profits from it daily ) and, ultimately, factors that lead to an impartiality, necessary in each and every case.
Well, continuing with the main topic, this group strongly affirmed that this article in Spanish of the mentioned user contained an insurmountable plagiarism.
But what did Dupli Checker say about it? That only a 6% of the article had words equal to the original and that a 94% of the article was legitimate.
At this point, it is necessary to inform and know (something that this group does not know or want to know) that to consider a text as intentional or unintended plagiarism, there must be at least 20% similarity between texts. And I'm talking about texts and official cases, such as doctoral theses, etc.
Important fact to know, since these people are calling plagiarists and scum to people who may have 6% or 3% similarity between texts; normal thing when the text is a paraphrase of the original.
Can you imagine? These people blame other people and blacklist them because of a 100-word text, 6 or 3 are equal to the original text. Words that can be commonly used such as: that or what, how, a, and, etc..
To be fair, at this point I will say that this first article of this user, reflected a bibliographic source where had supposedly paraphrased from, but not the one that Jaguar Force said, which I recognized but that I alleged could have been a confusion or neglect , since the rest of the article contained a big number of photo credits, etc..
A curious fact, which reaffirms my claim that they are based on low percentages of alleged plagiarism (or what they consider as such), is that their modus operandi is based on putting screenshots of supposed paragraphs taken from the original source and the alleged plagiarized source, framed in red and blue, as proof of plagiarism.
Well, up here you have the real example of the case of this user and, those who know Spanish, you will see how in the paragraphs almost no word fits, although they put them as proof that they are identical.
That's playing dirty dear jaguar...
After talking to them privately (if what we had could be called conversation), they tried to reaffirm their position by bringing and showing me another article by the same user where, supposedly, it also contained a terrifyingly clear plagiarism.
Can you guess what Dupli Checker told me? I show you:
0% plagiarism!
In addition, the source that Jaguar Force cited as the original in his article of a new plagiarism report, did not match in any of the 50 poems I read, with the paragraph he put there as an image and proof of having found two equal paragraphs.
Were you trying to cheat me blatantly, jaguar?
10 days ago they accused and blacklisted another user: @sandracabrera.
I took the trouble (I don't charge for this, unlike them) to check it out for myself and guess what Dupli Checker said?
8% of equal content, 92% of unique content. An article that clearly paraphrases some things but that the rest is totally original.
And they, without this data or any knowledge, go to other projects to tell them to stop voting for these users because they are compulsory plagiarists....
As I told you before, I do not take any of this and yet I went to alert one of those projects to ignore this swarm of thugs without any knowledge.
We, @dresden speaking on behalf of the The Talent Club project, have stopped voting them or their reports, of course; for lack of professionalism and for being a walking fraud.
Someone should take serious measures against these people to stop establishing their kingdom of chaos and false or misguided accusation.
I did not want to say goodbye without showing you the amount of insults that this group told me in private, by running out of arguments against my personal investigations.
True gentlemen.
Hi there. I read this article with great interest and even spent some time looking at the paragraphs in question. I then did an informative post on what plagiarism really is...
I am not sure where you got that 20% figure from - my information from Plagiarism.org is that any unauthorized/uncredited use of someone else's work is plagiarism. It doesn't have to be word-for-word either. Paraphrased/spun work is also plagiarized if it has not be properly credited (at the very least.)
Plagiarism is a serious problem on the blockchains and harms all of us by making the platform look like it approves of theft - as that is what plagiarism is - theft of someone's intellectual property.
I agree that jaguar could have been kinder in his manner of speech, but having got to know him, I know that's simply part of his language - a jaguar isn't elegant when bringing down a croc... and that is how he has styled himself. He means well for the blockchain - even if he treads on a few toes in the process.
Thank you for your time.
I must clarify that my insults were not unwarranted,
"imbecil", which is the adjective I use in the chat, is the word imbecile
which is etymologycally based on baculus, and means, "he who needs a walking stick to walk", this applied to plagiarism detection, fits perfectly 1 on one with a person that uses duplichecker to detect plagiarism, I hope you can understand the "insults" were not gratuitous.
Don't keep exposing yourself being so ridiculous with your so ridiculous arguments, please Jaguar.
This guy is a character, he thinks we're all stupid.
Hello, @viking-ventures.
A pleasure to meet you and thank you for your reading.
We all know the Plagiarism thing it's is a more difficult matter than we think, but for this purpose, more and more accurate rules have been created and must be put into operation in Steemit.
Talking about that, logic tells us that in order to define something as plagiarism you must meet a series of requirements and, among them, in my opinion and in the opinion of many professionals, you must meet some percentage requirements. Because also logic says that you can not say that a paraphrased paragraph in a 3000 words work it's a plagiarism, although that paragraph could be very similar to the other one.
As I exposed in my article, the actual ratio in Spain it's a 20% and talking about official cases such as PhD thesis, end of degree projects, end of master projects, etc..
Even recently, the current president of Spain was subjected to an anti-plagiarism test for his master's thesis and justice decided that there was no plagiarism because only 14% of the text was equal to others. Justice, I remark again. And they use both, manual and program revision, as I did in these cases exposed.
The same way justice says there is a time limit for the plagiarism to expire, like any misdemeanor, which is between 6 months and 1 year. So, you can't go, like Jaguar does , to a 3 years ago article when someone plagiarized and call him plagiarist, because legally he's not already, because his felony expired.
But I did not this article to really talk or discuss about that: I have the things clear on that respect and many anti-plagiarism projects should have them clear also.
I wrote this article to expose the Jaguar's FRAUD, trying to manipulate the evidence of the cases to make people believe that their searches are accurate. That's the real intention of this article if you read it carefully: to expose the bad ways and the lack of professionalism and knowledge of Jaguar.Force.
He lied to me, manipulating sources; he lied to me, showing me a second evidence (a poem) where no was any plagiarism; he did screenshot different paragraphs (of supposed plagiarism) trying to make them go through the exact same paragraphs because people don't even bother to check them.
That's the real case here.
The danger that supposes to have this jaguar doing some work well (because he sometimes catches some real plagiarism, I'll recognize that) and some work really bad, but with with joy and nocturnality.
We cannot trust a group that catch 4 plagiarism and then lies about 3 more because they want to publish a daily report or because they just don't like the people they're false accusing.
So, as I clear as I have seen their fraud I did want every part of the community to know what kind of people is this people and the danger they suppose for the community if they keep camouflaging very bad practices among some good.
So, Spain has admitted that they can't expect anyone to be free of plagiarism? That's a sad state of affairs. Can't they expect their university graduates to produce their own material?
In any case, I'm not in Spain. Jag is not in Spain. Most of the problem plagiarism on Steem is not in Spain. We are not governed by Spanish law. Nor does the time thing exist for us - it looks like Spain has caved in to the plagiarists because the problem is so rampant there - we should take that as a warning - not as a meter stick for everyone else.
Paraphrased plagiarism doesn't have to be the exact same paragraphs. It's more about taking one source, swirling it around and spitting it back out again - as happened in this case. I did look at the chosen paragraphs and even with my limited spanish, I could see the spinning.
The reality is that any plagiarism on the blockchains hurts us all. It makes us look like we accept spun articles as quality work when they are actually the work of others. We need to be good models, so we (as a community) can attract funding. (I will include Jag with his tact on this one...) If it looks like we accept plagiarism in all forms, then we won't get these people interested in what we're doing.
Now that I'm involved, I will be watching more of Jag's work. If I see fraud on his end, I will call him out on it, (though I will most likely do it privately, not publicly) - knowing that sometimes while fighting fraud, it's possible to occasionally catch the wrong person... simply because one is conditioned to see wrongdoing.
Thank you for your respectful reply.
Addendum: I keep forgetting to give you the link to the post I wrote last night...
Plagiarism - How to Avoid Trouble - Block Cleaning
I choose to fight through education, first and foremost.
I think your reading comprehension is not as good as I would wish so I will not take you (nor to me) more time discussing clear statements said by me than you or Jaguar are misleading after.
And I did it publicly just because it's a blatant fraud with joy and nocturnality made by a supposed anti-plagiarism project that tried to cheat me in the face.
Posted using Partiko Android
The path of life reserves us surprises, good and not so good, but worth living to incorporate as learning, because we come to this world to that: to learn. However, the matter is not so easy and sometimes nothing pleasant. For example, being objected as a person for sharing the good word, the one that exalts, the one that rescues, the one that allows the spirit to flow in freedom, because we are what we think, say, live, vibrate.
As a growing being, I consider that we are more than we appear and much more than others think we are. I have as a maxim of life to let the Universe flow for what I must learn, without my intervention, because the ego and pride is what is exalted in disputes, in accusations and, sometimes, even in defenses . For this reason, I do not usually replicate or try to convince, I think it is an energetic wear that does not contribute anything positive, because whoever does not have Love in his heart, moves within a vibratory field of hate, suspicion, evil; dark energies that dirty the entire environment that lurk.
However, I cannot remain silent in the face of this gesture of Love from @dresden, because generosity, solidarity and family move it; because although the notion of FAMILY in Steemit goes unnoticed, we are, even if we congregate in smaller nuclei. Steemit is a big family and the family is respected, educated if they make mistakes, supported; It is not destroyed, it is not accused, it is not hunted ... It is LOVED.
Thank you, @zeleiracordero.
Always a pleasure to fight against corruption and falsehood.
Lástima que no vi esta publicación antes este tipo se cree Dios el único que lo sabe todo el dueño de steemit es un caso lo he visto varias veces ofender usuarios con un lenguaje nada profesional de muy mal gusto de rata de alcantarilla y nadie le puede dar un parado? Nadie le puede decir que controle un poco su actuar parece policía venezolano abusando de su autoridad e investidura llenando de maltrato a los usuarios aquí vemos las pruebas. Espero que alguien le de un parado en algún momento a usted detrás del usuario @jaguar.force por que la razón se pierde si no se sabe expresar aprenda modales esta tratando con personas.
Hi @trafalgar. Can you tell me why the downvote?
I would imagine it would probably have something to do with the large bid bot vote.
Probably, yes.
Now the poor have no right to receive a large vote even if it is paying for it.
That's sad.
Hoe about instead of paying for a vote, you use that Steem to power up AND actually participate in influencing the ecosystem.
People that just buy votes without powering up seem like they don't really want to have skin in the game like the rest of us.
That's not really something we should be rewarding if we understand the economics of this place.
Hello. You're talking to an user who has more than 20,000 SP Powered Up, between his account and the accounts of his 2 projects and being here for 3 years.
How about don't tell him what he's supposed to do moreover when you have only 5,000 SP and he's not bidvoting often, just in some cases where he wants some promotion for some concrete article.
Yeah after I submitted I checked that. Thought I deleted. Oh well.
But yes, that brought me to you and was curious about the claim of 1500% ROI which I'm all frankness is a bit extraordinary.
How exactly is such a fantastic ROI provided? Guess you got an opportunity for a plug.
If you, @talentclub, are a responsible curator then delegating is a good thing. We need more positive curation that brings talent and thus value here.
Anyways, really interested in that ROI proposition. Would you point me to a link that lays it out?
Hi there again.
The things it's easy.
If you delegate to us an amount between 1 SP and 5,000 SP we assure you a 1500% daily ROI with an upvote from our account.
Example: If you delegate us 400SP, and 400SP actually gives to yourself in your account 0.01$, we assure you a 0.15$.
If you're interested just go through our Discord.
Grertings.
Not considering the alleged insults that were exchanged in "private". So what I'm reading is a flight of privacy. As has been repeated by @viking-ventures, 9 words are enough to be considered plagiarism. If we also consider that the author very often uses similar situations to the original source, assembling only more parts, it seems clear the abuse
The thing here is that they were not assembling any parts. Both girls just paraphrased in a good manner as legit to do it and Jaguar just stated those paragraphs as evidence of assembled paragraphs but they're false evidences.
That's the real case here.
And let me say NO again against your 9 words plagiarism statement.
As I explained in my article, 9 words exactly could happen in common words as "what", "who", "and", "a", "man", etc..
The important thing in plagiarism it's the percentage as in the officisl cases for justice.
Posted using Partiko Android
the important thing is that they are not in a row and frankly I do not think we are talking about conjunctions or grammatical forms, but words that make sense...
if you try to look at the situation from another point of view, you will realize that the subjects in question, have taken inspiration from other articles, and not mentioning them makes what they have made a plagiarism.
Hello @dresden:
I think that you are right about this particular case, is difficult to see plagiarism there. Two scientific articles that speak of the same surely tend to coincide in expressions.
But I don´t have a good opinion about @corderozeleira. I don´t know really what is she doing now, but I know she used to plagiarize poets.
Take a look to this:
And this:
1- https://www.poesi.as/jrs29b062.htm
2- https://www.poesi.as/jrs29b057.htm
I don't know how that plagiarism percentage works, but that is just a collage with different poems of Sucre, a latin poet. You can see for yourself that there she takes other people's verses and modify them a bit to mislead.
It may be considered a good work of selection and mixing of verses, but in that case he should have cited the sources of those verses that appear the same in some cases and with slight variations in others.
I could see that by those times when she published poetry she did this several times. And actually at the beginning I read her publications with interest, believing she was a great poet. But I could realize that it was a fraud.
As I said before, may be she is doing things right now, but for my part I have lost the interest in her publications.
I greet you cordially.
And I take this opportunity to recognize the great work you do on this platform.