Friday, October 31, 2014

Plagiarism and Other Legal Tangles (Part 3 of 11)

So how do we decide what to document? The standard rule is "You do not have to document common knowledge on a topic." That means information that most educated people know, or people in your field. You might need to look up information on who won the Pulitzer Prize in 1970, or who won the World Series in 2004, but that's information anyone can know.

You also do research. If you feel your information comes out of your blending together information but not specifically quoting from anyone, you're probably all right. While working on this series, I have seven books on my desk and I've checked three trusted online sources. But I haven't quoted from any of them.

For example, I'm currently working on a book with Bobby Davis, a highly successful pastor in Tennessee. I've been working and writing a chapter on a specific biblical topic. I can go beyond common knowledge because of my educational background (I'm a seminary graduate) and my experience (I was a pastor for 14 years). I can't possibly remember where I learned the information, so I don't try to cite it. However, when I refer to the Bible, I document by quoting the verses followed by chapter and verse and the translation.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Plagiarism and Other Legal Tangles (Part 2 of 11)

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm distilling the information I've gathered from my best sources in print and online.

Plagiarism means presenting someone else's words or ideas as if they were your own. It's a form of stealing. It also means claiming something as original when it's derived from what someone else has written.

The expression of original ideas is called intellectual property and copyright laws protect that property.

Although probably obvious, here are examples of plagiarism:
  • turning in someone else's work as your own; 
  • copying words or ideas from others without giving credit; 
  • failing to put quotation marks around a quotation; 
  • changing words but copying the sentence structure without giving credit;
  • copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, even if you give credit. This violates the fair use law. (See Part 10). 
You can avoid stealing or plagiarism by citing your sources. You acknowledge that you have borrowed from someone and provide readers with enough information to find the original source. (See Part 8 on how to cite your sources.)

Friday, October 24, 2014

Plagiarism and Other Legal Tangles (Part 1 of 11)

Do I have to copyright my material?

The answer is no, although you may spend the money. Since the enactment of the copyright law of 1978, whenever you have anything in a fixed form (the legal term), you already have a common law copyright.

If you submit to magazines and books, please don't put the © symbol. It's a shout about you. It means either you're ignorant of the law or you're afraid that professional editors will steal your material. (In my experience, those who seem the most concerned have the least to fear—their writing probably isn't good enough to steal.)

However, if you use the © for any online submission, I can see that as a way to say to the ignorant, "This is copyrighted and if you copy it, you're stealing."

As one of my friends said, "It probably won't deter anyone. Thieves know it's illegal."

For the next 10 blogs, we're going to look at some of the legal tangles with plagiarism.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Selling by the Numbers

(This is an edited version from Rob Eagar's blog. Used by permission.)

When I took a class on statistics in college, the first words my professor said were, "Never forget that anyone can manipulate numbers to make them mean whatever they want."

Today, with the mass adoption of Twitter and Facebook, never before have numbers meant so much and yet also meant so little. Social media has created the mass desire to be followed, liked, and shared. The larger a following you can amass, the more you can impress your friends, attract new opportunities, and terrify your competitors.

We live in an age where online popularity has the ridiculous ability to control major business decisions or determine someone's career. Yet, there's never been a time when big numbers can be inflated so easily and deceptively.

For example:

1. According the New York Times, you can buy fake followers on Twitter for around $18 per 1,000. I've seen shady businesses on Ebay offer fake Facebook followers for a similar price.

2. My own experience with the popular ShareThis WordPress plug-in for bloggers revealed that anyone can easily run up the share counter that's displayed without actually sharing the information from a blog post with anyone.

3. Facebook claims to offer an effective advertising medium, yet their average click-through rate is .0005 (5 in 10,000) In addition, a Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that 4 out of 5 Facebook users have never bought a product or service as a result of advertising or comments on the social network site. In addition, researchers at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute found that less than 1% of fans of the 200 biggest brands on Facebook actually engaged.

4. According to ConstantContact, the average open rate for email newsletters is around 19%. So, someone who claims to have 5,000 newsletter subscribers is probably reaching around 1,000 people.

5. I've seen bloggers promote an artificial number on their blog that combines all their different social media followers and subscribers into one big number, which is designed to make us think their platform is larger than it really is.

Be careful how much stock you put into building your own numbers and assessing someone else's numbers online. We'd all be better off if we focused on the only numbers that really matter, which is how many units sold, how many customers added, and how many dollars were deposited into the bank. 

 — Rob Eagar, WildFire Marketing, http://www.StartaWildFire.com 

Friday, October 17, 2014

Similes and Metaphors (Confusing Words Part 12 of 12)

I read and hear metaphor used with a variety of meanings. A metaphor is a figure of speech applied to something to which it's not literally applicable. Worse, the two words get tossed around as if they mean exactly the same thing.

A simile is a metaphor, but not all metaphors are similes. That is, metaphor is a broader term, and a literary device that transfers the qualities or aspects from one object to another. Example: I tried to write but my mind was an empty screen.

A simile is a comparison but uses like or as. In the above sentence, the metaphor becomes a simile this way: I tried to write but my mind was like an empty screen. My favorite simile is from Robert Burns who penned these words, "My love is like a red, red rose."

I recently read this metaphor by playwright Lillian Hellman: "I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions." (Notice her correct usage of will in the first person showing determination.)

In short, both words compare two things of different classes. Some grammarians insist that a simile makes the comparison explicit or concrete. Perhaps they're correct, but I find it difficult to see the distinction.

One more thing is what we call the mixed metaphor. I'm surprised that writers aren't aware of using them. This happens when we combine two or more incomparable figures.

Example: We try to sweep thorny problems under the rug but they continue to bob up.

Here's a better way of saying it: We try to weed out thorny problems that thrive no matter what we do. Thorny problems, weed, and thrive keep the metaphor clear.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Should or Would (Confusing Words Part 11 of 12)

In general, the rule for the use of shall and will apply—if you're making the distinction I pointed out in the previous blog. But I don't know anyone who still does that for this pair of words. That battle seems long lost for grammarians.

However, there is a broad difference in the two words. Should implies obligation or duty and would refers to habitual action.

* I should leave immediately to catch my scheduled flight.

* Harvey would take a walk every day.

* You should learn to relax and enjoy your life.

* Lincoln once quipped, "If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?"

Here's another point that many writers don't notice. When we're writing about habitual action, use would only the first time. After that, write in the past tense and you won't need the word again.

Example: At Mariah's house, we would eat our lunch at 11:30 and then we went into the garden to pick vegetables. After that, we lay in the sun for twenty minutes and then raced to the mail box.

Otherwise, you'd have to write: At Mariah's house, we would eat our lunch at 11:30 and then we would go into the garden to pick vegetables. After that we would lie in the sun for twenty minutes and then we would race to the mail box.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Shall or Will (Confusing Words Part 10 of 12)

I struggled in eighth grade to grasp the difference between shall and will. However, the definition I learned no longer holds true. I think it's probably because most people (including writers) don't know the difference. I'm going to give it because I still like the subtle differences in meaning—even if not everyone else does.

Use shall in the first person to express the future. (I shall visit you in the spring). Use will in the second or third person. (They will visit me in the spring.) That's easy enough but the subtly comes when we want to express a command or strong determination. Then we reverse the rule.

I will not go back to that place. You shall make a dreadful mistake if you marry Bart.

Please note that even Churchill said it wrong: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds . . . we shall never surrender."

Most people won't know the difference, 
but I will use shall correctly.