You're viewing a single thread.
Watched internet historians youtubevideo about the dude.Damn horrible situation...
Now go watch hbomberguy's video about plagiarism to be aware of how much of this Internet Historians video is stolen.
Cool, looks like a lot of video to watch, I'll take your word for it. Not too surprising thinking about it.
Maybe not surprising, but still disappointing. I liked IH videos, but knowing that a lot of it is stolen, puts a stain on it. But at least it explains why his videos tend to disappear from his channel.
Edit: The IH part starts at around 1:25:00 and lasts 20 minutes.
Was he the guy who also kept making all sorts of Nazi references?
Yeah there's an alarming amount of them.
Today's MVP!! And I agree, it puts a smear over all the content.
guy covers historical event doesn't rewrite history, instead takes what someone else has written about event doesn't use own fotos, uses someone elses foto instead makes mistakes
I am not saying this is a big nothing burger, but his only real mistakes was not to list his sources.
Yeah, no. He almost entirely verbatim copied the text and wording on the original article and shuffled some words around to try and make it less obvious (and failed). It is blatant plagiarism, there is no other way to call it. This was no innocent mistake of forgetting to list a source. Watch the hbomberguy video segment about it, it paints a very clear picture.
It is blatant plagiarism
yes, and a solution could have been to cite sources.
This was no innocent mistake of forgetting to list a source
I don't think, that not-citing-sources is an innocent mistake.
Watch the hbomberguy video segment about it, it paints a very clear picture
I did. I does paint a very colorful picture. Full of opinion and sarcasm and rhethoric.
Here is a rule-of-thumb to decide if an argument was convincing because it had good content, or because it was well written: If the content was good, it will be easy for you explain to a 3rd party. If only the presentation was good, then you will have a hard time convincing others.
Full of opinion and sarcasm and rhethoric.
It became annoyingly fingerpointy for me personally.
If the content was good, it will be easy for you explain to a 3rd party. If only the presentation was good, then you will have a hard time convincing others.
Articles can be written perfectly, but that doesn't mean I'll read them. Give me someone narrating the whole thing with entertaining animations in the background and you've created something interesting and engaging to me.
The one thing about that which I find worth defending, is how much his video made the story entertaining. I wouldn't have read the article but his video kept me engaged . Even if the writing was copied, he still added a lot to it.
That's the most baffling thing. His video was transformative. Had he just credited the writing he'd probably be fine but he just decided not to, for some reason.
Adding video isn't transformative. Otherwise Disney could just turn any book they want into a movie without ever paying anyone for the rights.
You can be entertaining without stealing other people's work and claiming it as your own.
This is a different man in a cave.
Which one? Are either of them still up? I heard he got hbomed.
That wasn't this guy, it was different cave. Turns out lots of people have died horribly in caves.
Was this Man in Cave? Because I definitely heard about it...