The Treloar fallout/failure 6 months on

[Dougeytherichmondfan]

Right, and as its MY research and they are MY ideas, I owe no individual or body any recognition. I have not plagiarised or paraphrased anyone. Facts are facts until they are contested.

[Stalin]

wp its 'open information'

the draft order has been available on tv, radio, newspapers

it doesnt require a source as its factual

ie. deledio was a pick 1

i dont have to source afl.com.au as my claim is true ...

[Yeahright]

Dougeytheacademic should know all about referencing common mate!

[WilliamPowell]

Right, and as its MY research and they are MY ideas, I owe no individual or body any recognition. I have not plagiarised or paraphrased anyone. Facts are facts until they are contested.

So you are saying off the top off your head you knew all of those draft picks?

You said you did some research, research means you went and looked at references to get information. You then used that researched info to give a view

If you took information from another source it should be referenced accordingly

Unless or are you now saying you didn't do that and you knew all this data without any assistance from other sources

[Loui Tufga]

wp its 'open information'

the draft order has been available on tv, radio, newspapers

it doesnt require a source as its factual

ie. deledio was a pick 1

i dont have to source afl.com.au as my claim is true ...

That all depends if you had to look it up or if you just pulled it straight out of your head.
I'd say you'd need to think back to where you first seen or heard he was pick 1 and quote the source you seen or heard it from prior to memorizing it!

[Penelope]

i think we should be concerned with the things people post that they pull straight out their arse, rather than if they pulled it out of their head or from another site.

[Dougeytherichmondfan]

Right, and as its MY research and they are MY ideas, I owe no individual or body any recognition. I have not plagiarised or paraphrased anyone. Facts are facts until they are contested.

So you are saying off the top off your head you knew all of those draft picks?

You said you did some research, research means you went and looked at references to get information. You then used that researched info to give a view

If you took information from another source it should be referenced accordingly

Unless or are you now saying you didn't do that and you knew all this data without any assistance from other sources

I referred to what is categorically "common knowledge". It is reasonable to assume that during any draft it was publically broadcast, that information mediums (ie newspapers, radio) enabled the average punter free access to such information.

Within academia an auther is not expected to source facts which may be reasonably assumed as "common knowledge". Which is to say, I would not have to source any fact accepted. If people wish to contest something Ive posted, by all means.

Its common knowledge that players in the afl are drafted, that draft results are broadcast publically and that this information is easily attainable on any number of sources.

If this were not the case, simple statements become exhaustingly laborious. Imagine having to quote a peer reviewed source simply to preface that the sky is blue, or afl footballers are professional athletes.

Which relates largely to any liabilty. Who could potentially make a claim for restitution if I make the statement that Jarrod Grant was taken with pick 5 in the 07 draft?

[Stalin]

wp its 'open information'

the draft order has been available on tv, radio, newspapers

it doesnt require a source as its factual

ie. deledio was a pick 1

i dont have to source afl.com.au as my claim is true ...

That all depends if you had to look it up or if you just pulled it straight out of your head.
I'd say you'd need to think back to where you first seen or heard he was pick 1 and quote the source you seen or heard it from prior to memorizing it!

Refer to Douglas

[WilliamPowell]

I referred to what is categorically "common knowledge". It is reasonable to assume that during any draft it was publically broadcast, that information mediums (ie newspapers, radio) enabled the average punter free access to such information.

Within academia an auther is not expected to source facts which may be reasonably assumed as "common knowledge". Which is to say, I would not have to source any fact accepted. If people wish to contest something Ive posted, by all means.

Its common knowledge that players in the afl are drafted, that draft results are broadcast publically and that this information is easily attainable on any number of sources.

If this were not the case, simple statements become exhaustingly laborious. Imagine having to quote a peer reviewed source simply to preface that the sky is blue, or afl footballers are professional athletes.

Which relates largely to any liabilty. Who could potentially make a claim for restitution if I make the statement that Jarrod Grant was taken with pick 5 in the 07 draft?

All well and good but you didn't list 1 player you listed 22 players over a 12 year period, so did you or did you not get that information from somewhere?

Yes it is easily found and yes it is common knowledge that all AFL players are drafted but to reproduce it such detail like you have means you sourced it from somewhere which should be IMHO be noted

But I get that you are refusing to do so

[🏅Dooks]

At that was the end of the thread

[(•))(©™]

Nobody will sue OER.
It ain't happening.
They know if they did, it would be the best publicity they could give the joint.

This is not homocide or national security stuff.

[Dougeytherichmondfan]

At that was the end of the thread

Woulda been great if a few people might have actually lent their opinions on the topic. I suppose Im as much to blame as anyone.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

At that was the end of the thread

Woulda been great if a few people might have actually lent their opinions on the topic. I suppose Im as much to blame as anyone.

I've already made my point.

The other thing is Wikipedia should not have to be posted as a link as it doesn't tell us who the author is all the time. People can go on the site and add information including false information without verifying who they really are. So it is pointless having to have a link to them. It gets a bit ridiculous when events that have happened under our own eyes cannot be stated without a link. That information also does not belong to one author unless it is an opinion piece. Stating facts as they happened is not an opinion and so there is no ownership of the information.
If I amwrong then when is it necessary to post a link ?  I can tell you Hodge was number 1 pick in the 2001 draft followed by Ball and the Judd. If I could remember the next 3 in order is that OK or would I need to put a link in? And if I don't and can remember the first 20 because I have a good memory, what do I do then?

That is why I think that this information has no ownership as it is factual. When a report is made that is about events that are not freely seen by all and is laced with opinion, then that clearly must be quoted and linked.

That is my ever so humble opinion.......

[Damo]

Hawthorn have won the last three premierships

Source : The Herald Sun

The Sun will rise tomorrow

Source : NASA

Farts smell

Source : The Great Australian Nose Society

[Hard Roar Tiger]

I referred to what is categorically "common knowledge". It is reasonable to assume that during any draft it was publically broadcast, that information mediums (ie newspapers, radio) enabled the average punter free access to such information.

Within academia an auther is not expected to source facts which may be reasonably assumed as "common knowledge". Which is to say, I would not have to source any fact accepted. If people wish to contest something Ive posted, by all means.

Its common knowledge that players in the afl are drafted, that draft results are broadcast publically and that this information is easily attainable on any number of sources.

If this were not the case, simple statements become exhaustingly laborious. Imagine having to quote a peer reviewed source simply to preface that the sky is blue, or afl footballers are professional athletes.

Which relates largely to any liabilty. Who could potentially make a claim for restitution if I make the statement that Jarrod Grant was taken with pick 5 in the 07 draft?

All well and good but you didn't list 1 player you listed 22 players over a 12 year period, so did you or did you not get that information from somewhere?

Yes it is easily found and yes it is common knowledge that all AFL players are drafted but to reproduce it such detail like you have means you sourced it from somewhere which should be IMHO be noted

But I get that you are refusing to do so

I reckon it's common knowledge that most of our picks have been stuffed up in the past 30 years