Talk:Gregory Balestrero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. ^ "ASME names new executive director" in: ASME news May 2002.
  2. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference NASA2007 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ While president, Carter brought about a 350% increase in membership, as well as major financial growth. See "ASME names new executive director" in: ASME news May 2002.
  4. ^ a b c d "ASME names new executive director" in: ASME news May 2002.
  5. ^ While president, Carter brought about a 350% increase in membership, as well as major financial growth. See "ASME names new executive director" in: ASME news May 2002.

Further comment[edit]

I came here from Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#People are not getting the message, and I have a problem with the text in Project Management Institute#History. Either the text needs to be in quotes (as it is in the second example in this section) because it is covered by copyright or it does not. If not, why is it in quotes in the second example in this section? -- PBS (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember all the details of the discussion back in December or what our conclusions were... but the text in the current version of the article looks like blatant cut-and-paste plagiarism to me. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 09:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, again the P-word, but I am not sure which exact text either of you is refering to? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001." is directly lifted from the article word for word. If it is not in quotes it is a copyright violation. -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. There is the quote. Now what about a common phrase, see for example here: If the source is cited, it is not plagarism. There may be other problems, but not "plagarism".
Mmmm... Ok. Is it maybe it is not plagarism, but it is a copyright violation? I got the feeling I am still missing a point here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. This whole discussion started with the fact that the original "spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001" wasn't quote. That was the the main part of the whole discussion item.
It is not just that phrase I have quoted, there are others that are clear copyright violations. Would you please fix them in the article Project Management Institute#History? --PBS (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Plagiarism is more difficult to evaluate. On the talk page of the Wikipedia plagiarism guidelinethere is a good summary of the problem:
Andrew, I agree completely. Our plagiarism article is completely off base. Plagiarism is two separate offences: 1) taking credit, and 2) failing to give credit. Offence number one is of central concern in an acedimic and professional context and is very serious, but is essentially irrelevant to Wikipedia. For us, the problem is offence number two. While I feel it is still a serious ethical breech, it is much less severe than falsely taking credit. We need to justify our anti-plagiarism policy on our own terms, and not in terms of acedimic plagiarism. -Arch dude (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a difficult fussy line between summarising a source and citing it, and paraphrasing a source, which although not a legal copyright violation, is still plagiarism, even if the source is cited, because sources are usually cited for other reasons (usually to show that it is not WP:OR). This is a matter of judgement and in this case is not directly relevant as not putting the words lifted from any article under copyright in quotes is a copyright violation. -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I still don't understand what I should fix. But I removed the whole Project Management Institute#History section for now to be on the save side. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If some text is copied from a copyright source then it must be be in quotes. -- PBS (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it must be getting late because again I don't understand. The text I removed (see here) was a composition of at least 7 to 8 quotes from 4 or 5 different sources. Not just copied from a copyright source... -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Then you must quote each one, or summarise the sources, what you can not do is use sentences or phrases from the original sources without putting them in quotes so "spearheaded PMI's financial growth from an $8 million budget in 1997 to $30 million in 2001" must be in quotes, if you want to paraphrase it then something like this would do: between 1997 and 2001 PMI's budget grew nearly four fold, from eight to 30 million dollars. Usually it is more difficult to summarise just one source, it is much easier to summarise multiple sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I will make an effort of analyzing all of these 7 to 8 quotes from 4 or 5 different sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@Mdd: the "diff" you list above is not a policy or guideline, it's one random guy's opinion, and it's wrong: if a source is cited but no indication (quotation marks) is given to indicate that its wording is stolen directly, it is plagiarism. Citing a source attributes the origin of the ideas, but quotation marks are necessary to indicate when you're copying the wording as well. Both ideas and word choice need to be attributed. Since you clearly do not understand this, perhaps you need to read WP:PLAGIARISM (the guideline itself, not just the discussion page) before editing any further. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your advice. I read the article and learned there are a lot of exceptions. (This is something typically Dutch, bye the way, looking for the exceptions and the possibilities to bend the rules). Now I will turn to the Talk:Project Management Institute page and work on the alledged copyright infrigments over there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking for "exceptions" and loopholes to allow you to plagiarize is not really a good spirit for writing. Just avoid plagiarism, and be conservative by avoiding anything that might be plagiarism. That way you don't have to worry about all the "exceptions", and your writing will be better for it anyway. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Please Assume good faith. I guess you missed the point. In Holland we tell a joke about an army excercise of the German, Belgium and Dutch army. The Germans do everything by the book and pass, the Belgium do everything by the book and fail, and the Dutch do nothing by the book and pass anyway. This is what I ment by typically Dutch, thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Just a question: Is the person who is the subject of the article the son of The Wrong Man? --Ekac (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question!? I don't know the answer. But I do know that there are more Balestrero's mentioned in Wikipedia. I have added them together in the Balestrero page. -- Mdd (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)