The impression is because cheetah CAN catch plagiarism, that that is her purpose. Indeed, that is the purpose, but there is no way to differentiate ownership, so the voiced intent has to be different. The voiced intent has been changed to represent that there is similar content elsewhere, but does NOT state that this is wrong.
The cheetah message says;
"I found similar content that readers might be interested in"
If we dissect the message, we can note two things:
- Cheetah does not imply lack of ownership.
- Cheetah does not imply there is anything wrong.
The message is a notification to readers that there is content in the body that matches another location. The reader must then determine what to do with this information. Is it relevant? Maybe. Is it plagiarism? Maybe. Is it a false positive? Maybe.
As cheetah is a robot, she can never determine with 100% accuracy authorship, ownership, or even accuracy. She is a tool to notify readers that the given post may require addition thoughts before voting. The voter should regard the given information, and according to their own beliefs, determine (depending on the case), for example:
This is a repost: "Do I wish to support old, reposted content?"
This is plagiarism: "Do I wish to support plagiarism?"
This is picking up on something irrelevant to the post: "Should I be smart and ignore the comment?"
Note that I do not tell readers how to vote. Although I personally don't support reposted content, I am aware that other people do. And that's fine! Cheetah just gives readers the ability to make a more informed decision.
Anyways, I'm rambling...
Thanks for the reply. I am a fan of Cheetah. So no problem there.
We agree to dis-agree about reposted content. Without reposted content Shakspeare would never have become so popular. Or The Beatles songs would never get heard again.
Any out of print book/song that is reprinted/replayed in the original Authors name is technically reposted content. If it is still in the original Authors name and it is being reposted to a new generation of fans/public it should be allowed to have it's day in the sun.
Again this is not an argument. It's just a fact of life;D~
It's less about the act of reposting, but more so about the monetized reward of reposting content.
If you can repost your content (or someone else's content) and get paid for it at the same rate as putting effort into new content, should you? Why not do it twice and get twice the reward? Why not do it every day? Why not everyone do it every day? It's a slippery slope in my mind.
Sharing content I believe is fundamentally different to reposting content. We need to be cautious about the reward, not the action. People who "reposted" shakespeares content did not sell it to the same purchasers over and over. And they certainly did not claim to be shakespeare when they sold it to the purchasers, and pocket the reward. They shared the work, usually for free.
I think an author should be free and even encouraged to repost his own content as many times as necesary, exactly for the same reason a book author is free and encouraged to re-publish is book as many times as needed to: a) Increase the monetization of his work, b) Reach new audiences, c) Improve, correct the work (even with very small corrections).
Sure, but if the author is reposting their work without notifying the reader that this is a repost, then the reader assumes the work is new. This is self-plagiarism, fraud, and a big no-no in academia, where my mindset is coming from. If the author up-front says that the work is not novel, then there isn't a cause for concern.