I wrote this for EA but can’t/won’t post it at EA anymore due to the required licensing as of today. First paragraph:
Attitudes enabling ignoring “small” errors makes it significantly harder for critics to get attention and make progress. Even if they point out an error, and they are correct that it’s an error, and people agree with them … that often isn’t good enough. That makes the job of the critic very hard.
I don’t think quoting from another site could license the quoted texted, so that’s OK right? But then what if I posted my entire article block quoted, then could I post the full text here while avoiding the license problem...?
This isn’t obvious to me—how does being a good writer make you better at truth seeking?
I’m no longer having substantive discussions at this site due to the CC BY license rule. Do you want to discuss off-site?
What is the license problem that you foresee, Elliot?
What specifics concern you? I haven’t thought about it carefully, what perspective am I missing?
The license gives anyone the right to e.g. put my posts in a book and sell them without my consent. It lets them do all kinds of stuff with my work. I think my work is valuable and and I want to retain my IP and copyright rights about it. I think the prior, default system was good: fair use and quotations, plus asking for permission for other stuff.
BTW I’ve been plagiarized multiple times, I’ve had multiple people put my ideas in their published commercial books without consent or even notifying me (including some copyright violations), and including with mangling my ideas so badly that I wouldn’t want to be associated with their version so simply giving credit doesn’t fix the problem for me. Talking about someone’s ideas and quoting and paraphrasing them fairly and reasonably takes some skill that many people lack. One person offered to credit me as a co-author of his book when I found out he’d put a ton of my ideas in it. I declined because I would not want authorship of his low quality writing and reasoning, plus I was not involved with authoring the book at all. I don’t want him to plagiarize me, and I also don’t want him to incompetently summarize my ideas then credit me, let alone say I endorse it… CC BY would make all this stuff worse not better.
But mostly I just want to retain my property rights for my ideas, work, research, writing, etc. I think giving most of my ideas and writing away as free to read is more than generous enough.
My plan is to quit using the EA forum, though I’ll write a few things without important philosophy in them, like this one, rather than quitting abruptly. I will continue posting articles at https://criticalfallibilism.com and https://curi.us plus I’m actively using my forum and two YouTube channels. I have ~30,000 words of EA related draft articles which I’ll no longer be able to use as planned. I’ll probably try to quickly post a fair amount of that at curi.us with only light editing.
BTW, when reviewing EA’s terms of use yesterday I found other problems, e.g. a prohibition on posting anything “untrue”.
EDIT: I should also mention that I don’t want anyone translating my writing without consent because translations can easily be inaccurate and misleading, and essentially be like misquoting me. Translations basically come with an implication that I endorse what they say because it’s allegedly just my own words. I’ve had an issue with this in the past too, and if I ever get more popular all this stuff will come up more including with my archives.
Huh, very interesting, although it doesn’t seem that the license terms stopped all that from happening to you.
BTW, it looks like I can’t indicate agreement or disagreement with your post? Is that a setting you have set?
Yes the current default (US) copyright/IP system is far from perfect.
I’m not aware of setting a setting and both voting things are showing up for me on my own post just like on yours (including with a private browsing window).
Right, well, now the voting thing is working, whatever.
Elliot Temple postures as someone who deeply cares about credit and intellectual property, even gatekeeps others’ reputation with accusations of plagiarism, but he actually has a long history of plagiarism and copyright violations himself: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/elliot-temple-s-hypocrisy
From your link:
Calling me a plagiarist with zero examples and a fake source is defamation. You’re violating civil law and my rights. If you won’t discuss the conflict, leave me alone instead of following me to a site I can’t ban you from.
The copyright violation comment is misleading: there’s no claim that my writing or videos violate anyone’s copyright. Instead, the allegations are that I did stuff like How and why to turn everything into audio (Kat Woods and Amber Dawn, EA post, 2022).
For people who don’t know what’s going on, if you want to follow the stupid drama, see: Dennis Hackethal Threatened to Sue Me; Now He’s Blogging about Me and Dennis Hackethal’s Website, Veritula, Is Worse than Plagiarism.
For context: I am one of several people Elliot recently contacted cold to badmouth Dennis in matters of intellectual integrity. I’d never spoken to Elliot before, but I was already aware of his long running pattern of attacking people I know or admire. He shouldn’t badmouth people if he doesn’t want a response, and I think some balance is appropriate here.
Elliot, the article I linked documents many cases of what you yourself would call plagiarism if anyone else did it. You quoted one sentence out of context (a quoting tactic of yours Dennis has also written about), but that very paragraph says:
That’s the point. As you already know from reading the article carefully enough to quote a specific sentence, you apply one standard to others and another to yourself. You’ve written pages upon pages about others’ ideas without giving any credit. But when you think others do it, you delight in attacking their reputation. (Case in point: you immediately attacked Dennis’ reputation again in your response above, without any self-awareness, it seems.)
As for copyright: as you must also know, the article shows screenshots of you distributing entire books and pirating another. That’s not something Woods/Dawn advocate, and you did that before they published their article, so blaming them won’t work.
My point remains: your hypocritical track record on these issues weakens your complaints here and suggests that you care about control, not rights. You’re in no position to complain about EA’s policies around intellectual property, or to accuse anyone. People can read the evidence and decide for themselves.
Mod here. It looks like this thread has devolved into a personal dispute with only tangential relevance to EA. I’m therefore locking the thread.
Those involved, please don’t try to resurrect the dispute elsewhere on this forum; we may issue bans if we see that happening.