Talk:Argument from Non-Cognitivism

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 23: Line 23:
:The same thing goes for [[Argument from the Necessity of Naturalism]].
:The same thing goes for [[Argument from the Necessity of Naturalism]].
:--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 18:22, 28 May 2010 (CDT)
:--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 18:22, 28 May 2010 (CDT)
I'll reproduce the argument (wiki-style).--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 04:35, 1 June 2010 (CDT)

Revision as of 04:35, 1 June 2010

Questions about Copyright

This article is attributed as the copyrighted work of a third party, and this raises some questions for me.

Was permission given for its use? If it was lifted wholesale wouldn't a link to the original suffice?

References are scattered throughout the document, yet the sources were not included.

I'm new to this whole wiki shenanigans, so I'm not entirely sure what is permissible, or reasonable; since this is someone elses property, can I assume that editing it is off limits? Some considerable re-formatting is needed to make this article more user-friendly, and I wonder if it wouldn't simply be better to write a new entry to avoid questions of legality.

If I'm misunderstanding this, please let's discuss it.--Boggsj

No articles should be copied wholesale from a copyright source, or even from a non-copyright source. However, the argument itself is not copyright. So if someone wants to re-write the article describing the argument and maybe even commenting on it, he is free to do so.
Besides breaking a copyright, plagiarism is potentially offending the hard-working author of content of the other site. Not to mention that one should not simply copy arguments they don't understand well enough to write about themselves, lest he end up using poor arguments (we see Christians do this all too often).
I suggest that this article be deleted in lieu of a unique article replacing it.
Please sign your comments. There's a "signature" button above the text entry box.--Jaban 17:46, 28 May 2010 (CDT)
The "Attribution" section at the bottom gives the link to the original source. So this isn't plagiarism the way I understand it.
Having said that, I agree with the tl;dr comment. This page reads like someone's essay, and not an encyclopedia entry.
I vote that this page be deleted and, if there's any interest, be recreated in shorter form.
The same thing goes for Argument from the Necessity of Naturalism.
--Arensb 18:22, 28 May 2010 (CDT)

I'll reproduce the argument (wiki-style).--wissam hemadeh 04:35, 1 June 2010 (CDT)

Personal tools
wiki navigation