主题：【整理】黎阳：为肖传国说句公道话（一个海归的杯具） -- 迷途笨狼
家园 你在开什么玩笑 松鼠会的文章让人感觉这是他们自己的语言，没有给原作者名分，这是问题所在。敢情你判断抄袭靠的是感觉啊.
科学判断方是否抄袭的方法居然是
虽然我不会说汉语，我有一个独立人士翻译过来的方文章的英文版。用翻译过的方的文章能判断出方是否使用了别人的语言？
- 复 你在开什么玩笑
家园 你开什么玩笑 敢情你判断抄袭靠的是感觉啊.你写的一篇文章，如果没有标示，是不是都应该认为是你的原创？是不是感觉都是你的东西？科学判断方是否抄袭的方法居然是方是科普文章，使用别人的语言是不犯规的。虽然我不会说汉语，我有一个独立人士翻译过来的方文章的英文版。
用翻译过的方的文章能判断出方是否使用了别人的语言？
科学已经说的很清楚：问题是他的标示不够规范，全面。他指出了这是别人的工作，但没有标明作者姓名和发布杂志。
而松鼠会的文章，压根就没指出这是别人的工作。
这是二者的区别。看明白了？
- 复 你开什么玩笑
家园 Re If this were a homework assignment and Fang send his article in, you bet his work would be considered plagiarism by his professor.He would be given no points and would be sent to the honor committee to receive punishment. There is no question about it, because even though he mentioned that this is somebody else's work,he did not reword/interpret this work in his own word. Therefore it is considered plagiarism.
- 复 Re
家园 科普文章和论文乃至作业都不一样 因为没有人会认为科普文章是他自己的工作。方的标准我已经展示过了，方的文章作为论文当然要出大问题的，但是属于科普文章，标准并不一样。
家园 RE Of course 没有人会认为科普文章是他自己的工作。
But still, Fang is expected to write in his own words, in other words, express his own understanding of other people's work. Otherwise, Fang is expected to write "to cite XXX's words, ......", or put the citations in brackets. Apparently, if he did that, a significant portion of his article would be in brackets:) I doubt any newspaper/journal would like to publish his stuff.
At that time, Science editors were in the same camp as Fang, therefore they saved his face by only saying " it would not be considered acceptable journalism in western standard."
If Fang send in his article as a term paper/homework to my hands, hehe, see you in the University Honor Committee and good luck with even getting an "F".
Please refer to Scientific American for acceptable 科普 articles, and find if ANYONE did what Fang did.
家园 RE Your criteria for 科普文章 is simply wrong. Yes, 科普文章 mostly cites other people's work, similar to review articles in journals. If you interpret these people's work in your own words, attaching references behind is enough. However, if you cite their work word-by-word, you need to put these words into brackets, so that people will not be confused to think that you wrote these words. You can refer to Scientific American for how to write acceptable 科普文章.
That is why Fang's practice is not considered acceptable journalism in the U.S. by Science editors, it is plagiarism fair and square. No questions about it. The editors did not call it out because: 1. they consider Fang in the same camp at that time, and 2. Fang translated them into Chinese (shamelessly word-by-word).
- 复 RE
家园 我们看看当年这篇指责 One such dilemma is the trolley dilemma: A runaway trolley is headed for five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. The only way to save them is to hit a switch that will turn the trolley onto an alternate set of tracks where it will kill one person instead of five. Ought you to turn the trolley in order to save five people at the expense of one? Most people say yes.其中较著名的一个是“电车难题”：假设有一列失控的有轨电车飞奔而来，前面有两条轨道，一条站着五个人，一条站着一个人。如果不扳道岔，电车将冲向第一条轨道压死五个人。那么是否应该扳道岔，将电车引向另一条轨道，压死上面的那一个人？大多数人会回答应该，因为牺牲一个人拯救五个人是值得的。
. However, if you cite their work word-by-word, you need to put these words into brackets, so that people will not be confused to think that you wrote these words. You can refer to Scientific American for how to write acceptable 科普文章.Word-by-word?Now consider a similar problem, the footbridge dilemma. As before, a trolley threatens to kill five people. You are standing next to a large stranger on a footbridge that spans the tracks, in between the oncoming trolley and the five people. In this scenario, the only way to save the five people is to push this stranger off the bridge, onto the tracks below. He will die if you do this, but his body will stop the trolley from reaching the others. Ought you to save the five others by pushing this stranger to his death? Most people say no.现在，再考虑另一个难题：同样有一列失控的有轨电车飞奔而来，前方的轨道上站着五个人，处于危险之中。在电车和五个人中间，隔着一座天桥，桥上站着一位陌生的大胖子。拯救这五个人的唯一办法，是把这个大胖子推下天桥，电车将他撞死后就会停下来。那么是否应该把这个人推下桥去拯救五个人？大多数人会对这个“天桥难题”说不应该
. If you interpret these people's work in your own words, attaching references behind is enough.我们仔细看的话，很容易认定，方的确使用了自己的语言。shamelessly word-by-word？
说实话，英译汉，word-by-word是很困难的。
家园 re All I can say is you have been too double-standard. Perhaps you can give out a word-by-word translation of this scientist's work, and show us how different it is from Fang's work.
Using your standard, many of Fang's target are simply citing other people's work, not plagiarizing.
家园 你是来揭方舟子伤疤的吧 你不觉得按你的标准科普文章太好做了.你真的理解"interpret these people's work in your own words"是什么意思吗
家园 我是回答颐和园的 If you interpret these people's work in your own words, attaching references behind is enough. However, if you cite their work word-by-word, you need to put these words into brackets, so that people will not be confused to think that you wrote these words.而且你不要忘了，科学的回复当中，也有not directly copy的字样。你愿意不愿意是你的问题。
- 复 你开什么玩笑
家园 松鼠会那个不过是广告词 虽然从创意上讲和Dawkins的书是相近的（用Keats对牛顿的非议从反面论述科学和美的关系），但是从语言组织来看是有很大的差异的，应当认为是作者的原创。而方舟子的文章则有大段的表述和原始论文高度相近，是不是更接近抄袭呢？而科学杂志使用经过转译后的方舟子的文章来判断方是否使用了他人的语言在方法是明显有瑕疵的。
家园 我说了很多遍了 科普文章是可以使用别人的语言的，但是得标示。方标示了，松鼠会没有，就这么回事。