Kids Do That All the Time!

The copycat82 plagiarizes. Such a cut-and-paste is trivial, and could have been a product of a kindergarten kid, because it is only a trivial scissors-and-glue job. It is lacking any sound reasoning/reflection about the appropriateness of the graft.

If not for the exaggerated amount of faultiness, a lollipop could have been appropriate, esp. for a kid, doing that work. But of course, a Ph.D. title is not a lollipop, and the jury is not giving it out of their own pockets.

At any age...

If reading these pages with kids, or with whomever, whatever the age, the more responsible person(s), should tell/warn the others that the case study we are discussing, is not a role model. This presentation's being step-by-step, is not meant to be any example, for anyone. We are against plagiarism, and our discussion should make that clear, any way.

Which way to connect?

Pick NN73 (it is the well-known Macro E-nets paper). It presents a visual/graphical net, and a separate, formal text. Write (or, cut-and-paste that formal text, piece by piece, within the net. If a location is for tokens with token-attributes, draw attribute-count parallel paths, between the transitions before and after it, and write the name of each token-attribute, in one of those separate, parallel paths. Next, when you see a transition name, ai, write the text of its transition-procedure, as a rectangle, and paste it. This is all.

To make it appear "something different than E-nets" you may abridge E-net gate-logic, and draw it with SARA (UCLA graphs) looks, with static i/o operator macros, as operator signs, between in/out arcs. With this final bit of make-up, it is precisely copycat82.

Inquiring Minds Could Ask...

If you do this with kids, you may get a few questions, as the, however little, inquiring minds, may want to know. Here is a quick-list of answers:


A Babel Tower

For discovering a single-source plagiarism, a simple comparison may suffice. We may trace similarity of content , with possibly different names, and/or with a shuffling of its parts. For a well-read person, a single-source-plagiarism may be recognized more readily.

With multiple-sources, the copied chunks may bump into each other, and may be noticed by anyone, upon closer inspection, as glaring/screaming at the seams in the copy-center, even before locating any of the source papers. That is the case with copycat82, which cuts-and-pastes from a few.

You may read about those tutorial and/or research papers, through the page that points to the similarity, and the non-contribution of copycat82, presenting the prior art, that had been published, by others.

Forum: . . (Fair Menu . . . . . Fault Report? . . . . . Remedy for your case . . . . . Noticed Plagiarism?)

Referring#: 0.0.1
Last-Revised (text) on May 11, 2004 . . . that was
looks-and-links update: July 16, 2004
mirror to, on June 16, 2009
Written by: Ahmed Ferzan/Ferzen R Midyat-Zila (or, Earth)
Copyright (c) [1994,] 2004, 2009 Ferzan Midyat. All rights reserved.