Hello everyone, 

I've often come across news web sites, (here too unfortunately,) that are doing just that.  You can read exactly the same wording elsewhere.  I spend a great deal of time researching my work and it annoys the hell out of me when I see people simply lift the information to present as their own.

It's easy to spot.  Just run the article (or parts of it,) through Google and make sure you put quotes around your submission.  It's amazing what will come up sometimes.

Other reporting sites like Helium and Associated Content warn of a lifetime ban, even if someone does it just once.  It's all part of the TOS.
          ~ Swan

OK, here's a current example that is getting GS'd:

bobby fischer story 

I'm getting pretty darned tired of this, actually. 

This is an ongoing problem on NP that the paid editors dont seem to notice or be concerned about and even give good stuff flags to copied posts.

Wouldn't it be great if the 'paid editors' would give good stuff flags to the original stories members post?

Or how about an "Original Story by Member" flag, to differentiate them from copying/highlighting someone else's story?

This would encourage more original material! 

 And how about a listing on the Front Page for Originals and Opinion pieces? not just on the drop-down menu.

What is the difference between an Original story and an Opinion Piece?

Examples: my story on Recession which I filed under Opinions, when it is actually a news story for either Money & Stuff or Politics: http://www.nowpublic.com/opinions/recession-what-feds-don-t-want-you-know

and

this story by skipsmith: http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/34-indictments-federal-employees-are-we-getting-government-we-deserve 

I filed it under Opinion as I have had editors wrench, or other, stories in the past, but now it seems totally ignored on NowPublic Front Page. And this is an important story with risks incurred in posting it.

Rene, two good points, thanks.

On another thread-and I don't have the link at hand--I'd suggested having a special NP "brand" flag for original pieces.

The guidelines and standards seem to be changing, or changeable, or something. Now apparently it's OK to copy and paste entire copyrighted articles. 

To me, an opinion piece, or op-ed, is something that in its entirety, presents a viewpoint, with background, points, and a clear statement of why the writer is supporting a position. For example : The US Groundwater Health Protection System Needs Improvement. (Boy, what a lousy headline, but you get my drift.)

If some excerpts an article about, say, befouled ground water that runs into our water systems, then that's news: XYZ institute today charged that St. Louis' groundwater trapping system "brings filth that filters can't handle" into the system.

 That's news: someone has charged something. And a good news article will have both sides: "City water department head John Q. WaterWorks said that the study was flawed, and provided what he called 'clear documentation' that the water meets EPA standards."

Now, where it gets sticky wicket (if we're assuming any form of normal consistent journalistic standards) is here: the contributor tops the excerpt with say 7 paragraphs of alleging that groundwater filth is not well-regulated. (Let us pray, briefly, that she/he provides supporting links for contention!)

The excerpt is news. The original material with it is viewpoint. But I'd file that as news, because it started as news. Had the original material excerpted been an editorial (St. Louis Times Op Ed, claiming all knids of stuff, say), then I'd put it under opinion, as the entire piece was birthed as opinion.

But what I'd do at NP anymore? I don't know. The guidelines seem to change hourly, and sometimes it seems as though they change by topic (i.e. how many "hits" it will get) or by personality (who posts it). So I don't even bother wrenching, etc. anymore. Why take the heat when the recipes disagree in the kitchen?

Hello guys,

How about a nice bright gold star for original pieces?  Speaks for itself really.

As to what constitutes opinion or news: I struggled with this for some time when I first began delving into news reporting.  My formula (for me,) is as follows:

Opinion Piece: 

After spotting the news that I want to write about, I spend about an hour (or more,) thoroughly researching the topic.  I'll include a short excerpt from the original article and then build on it in my own words, from the research that I've done - perhaps including another quote or two along the way.

So I think my definition for an opinion piece would be: A nugget of an idea captured elsewhere which you then elaborate upon from decent research.

I also include links throughout my piece and include sources for both the article and photographs.

I love doing opinion pieces most of all, because I love putting my brain into gear.  Because it's opinion, almost anything goes, as long as it's intelligent, factual and within reason.

News:

Once I see news that I feel others will be interested in; again I'll plow into my research, though perhaps not as heavily as I would for an opinion piece.  My formula here is:

Spot your news; do your research; and report both sides, careful to make sure that anything you add to the piece is factual and discoverable.  I do still include other links and of course include links and sources for both article and photographs.

I hope that's helped, or has it only served to muddy the waters even more? *laughs*   But you're right René, there doesn't seem to be any concrete guidelines for people, which will only serve to lower the quality of the reporting.

If it were up to me, I'd be screening every story before it's published and NOT publish anything that is simply a cut and paste and nothing more.   Cutting and pasting, with nothing else added, still isn't reporting in my book.
     ~ Swan