[jraph]

Honestly, a researcher should know better to not plagiarize or to give attribution better than that. This is core in their job. If they do exactly this in their papers, it's going to be bad for them and they know it.

It's good they linked to the original post and that the link is the first thing we see, but nothing says that it's the source, and no paragraph explains that the content comes from elsewhere.

I also don't see why the content should be copy-pasted instead of just a link.

I see no malicious intents, it's probably done in good faith, but meh.

To the author: did you try to reach out? I'm sure something can be done about it if it bothers you. I expect the author of this copy to be receptive.

[nkrisc]

> I also don't see why the content should be copy-pasted instead of just a link.

Quite possibly an easy way to preserve the content in case the original goes offline and to share it with colleagues. Perhaps they wanted to link to it from some long-lived or even printed material. Not saying it’s the best way to do so, but it’s plausible and not malicious.

[jraph]

It’s plausible and not malicious, understandable too, but it's not hard to say it in a sentence at the beginning of the post.

This is a public blog, not some internal website.

Anyway, my previous comment probably sounds harsh because it is the way I wrote it (because I previously worked in a research lab, so I kinda feel disappointed), but I still consider this a minor fuck up and it happens to everyone, for sure.

[pyb]

That's utterly illegal though