Tracking down plagiarism on this site is an exhausting and time consuming task. But it's one that we have to take seriously. I'm not a proponent of intellectual property, as such. I disagree with copyright and patents. But I also think people should get credit for their work, and claiming to have produced some content when you didn't is pure fraud.
One of the problems with tracking down plagiarized content is that it's quite often modified with computer applications called "spinners." In order to help recognize some of the tell-tale signs of spun content, I decided to spin a couple paragraphs of my own writing and publish the results. I hope that we can examine the output and spot some patterns.
My Original Writing
My source material is my own writing, which can be found in one of my earlier posts on this site.
@bacchist/nerve-endings-of-the-universe
There was an 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a kind of "proof" for the existence of god. His writings are somewhat archaic and don't translate too well to modern English. And further, I don't really agree that he proves a judeo-christian god, by any means. But it makes for a good thought experiment. I'll run the risk of oversimplifying or outright misrepresenting him here.
He was an idealist, believing only in ideas and spiritual beings capable of perceiving those ideas. As for the material world, he would say those things actually do exist, but they exist only inside of minds or as they are perceived. Since our empirical evidence clearly shows a persistence in nature, and things exist even when we aren't looking at them, there must be a mind or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and thereby maintaining their existence. That would be God.
The Spinner
I signed up for a trial of WordAi, which is a subscription based service that produces spun content using various techniques and can be customized based on a few different settings.
There are two main spinners. A standard spinner, and a "Turing" spinner, which claims to generate human readable text. I decided to try them both.
The Standard Spinner
The first part of the output is what they call the "Spintax." This seems to be the result of the initial parsing of the text, which the spinner will process to create the final output.
There {was|is} a {18th century|18th-century} bishop/{philosopher|thinker} {named|called} George Berkeley {who had|who'd} {a kind|a type|some sort} of "{proof|evidence}" for {{the|that|your} {existence|lifetime} of {god|lord}|god's {existence|lifetime}}. {His|Their} {writings|documents|articles} {are {somewhat|fairly|relatively} {archaic|traditional|conservative} and {don't|do not} {translate|convert|turn|change|read} {too|also} {well|nicely|effectively} to {modern|contemporary} {English|Language}|{don't|do not} {translate|convert|turn|change|read} {too|also} {well|nicely|effectively} to {modern|contemporary} {English|Language} and are {somewhat|fairly|relatively} {archaic|traditional|conservative}}. And {further|additional}, {I do|I actually do|I really do|I-do}{n't|not} {really|truly|actually|definitely} {agree|concur} that he {proves|demonstrates|shows|establishes} a {judeo-christian|judeo christian|judeochristian} {god|lord}, {by any means|at all|in the slightest}. {But|However|Nonetheless|Nevertheless} it {makes for|creates|produces} {{a good|a great|an excellent|a superb} thought experiment|a thought experiment that is good}. {I'll|I will} {run|operate|work|manage} the {risk|chance|danger} of {{oversimplifying or {outright|downright}|oversimplifying} misrepresenting him {here|below}|{outright|downright} or oversimplifying misrepresenting him {here|below}|misrepresenting him {here|below} or {outright|downright} oversimplifying}.
He was an idealist, {believing|thinking|assuming|trusting|feeling} {only|just|simply|merely|solely} in {ideas and {spiritual|religious} {beings|creatures} {capable of|with the capacity of|effective at|able to} perceiving {those|these} {ideas|suggestions|tips}|{spiritual|religious} {beings|creatures} {capable of|with the capacity of|effective at|able to} perceiving {those|these} {ideas|suggestions|tips} and ideas}. {{As for the|When it comes to|Are you aware that} {material|content|product} {world|earth}, {he would|he'd} {say|declare|claim} those {things|activities|ideas} {actually do|really do|do} {exist|occur}, {but|however|nevertheless} they exist {only|just|simply|merely|solely} {inside of|within|inside} {minds|thoughts|heads|brains} or {as|because|since} they are {perceived|recognized|identified|observed|understood}|{As for the|When it comes to|Are you aware that} {material|content|product} {world|earth}, {he would|he'd} {say|declare|claim} {as|because|since} they are {perceived|recognized|identified|observed|understood} or those {things|activities|ideas} {actually do|really do|do} {exist|occur}, {but|however|nevertheless} they exist {only|just|simply|merely|solely} {inside of|within|inside} {minds|thoughts|heads|brains}|{As for the|When it comes to|Are you aware that} {material|content|product} {world|earth}, {he would|he'd} {say|declare|claim} they exist {only|just|simply|merely|solely} {inside of|within|inside} {minds|thoughts|heads|brains}, although those {things|activities|ideas} {actually do|really do|do} {exist|occur} or {as|because|since} they are {perceived|recognized|identified|observed|understood}|{As for the|When it comes to|Are you aware that} {material|content|product} {world|earth}, {he would|he'd} {say|declare|claim} {as|because|since} they are {perceived|recognized|identified|observed|understood} or they exist {only|just|simply|merely|solely} {inside of|within|inside} {minds|thoughts|heads|brains}, although those {things|activities|ideas} {actually do|really do|do} {exist|occur}}. {{Since|Because} our {empirical|scientific} {evidence|data|research} {clearly|plainly} {shows|exhibits|displays|demonstrates|reveals} a {persistence|determination} in {nature|character|dynamics}, and things {exist|occur} even {when|if|though} {we are|we're}{n't|not} {looking at|taking a look at|considering} them|{Since|Because} our {empirical|scientific} {evidence|data|research} {clearly|plainly} {shows|exhibits|displays|demonstrates|reveals} a {persistence|determination} in {nature|character|dynamics}, and things {exist|occur} even {when|if|though} {we are|we're}{n't|not} currently {looking at|taking a look at|considering} them|Things {exist|occur} even {when|if|though} {we are|we're}{n't|not} {looking at|taking a look at|considering} them, and {since|because} our {empirical|scientific} {evidence|data|research} {clearly|plainly} {shows|exhibits|displays|demonstrates|reveals} a {persistence|determination} in {nature|character|dynamics}|Things {exist|occur} even {when|if|though} {we are|we're}{n't|not} currently {looking at|taking a look at|considering} them, and {since|because} our {empirical|scientific} {evidence|data|research} {clearly|plainly} {shows|exhibits|displays|demonstrates|reveals} a {persistence|determination} in {nature|character|dynamics}}, there {must|has to|should} be {a {mind|brain|head} or {spiritual|religious|psychic}|{spiritual|religious|psychic} or a {mind|brain|head}} being {capable of|with the capacity of|effective at|able to} {experiencing {all things|everything|all-things|things}, and {thereby|therefore|thus} {maintaining|sustaining|keeping|preserving|retaining} their {existence|lifestyle|living|lifetime}|{thereby|therefore|thus} {maintaining|sustaining|keeping|preserving|retaining} their {existence|lifestyle|living|lifetime}, and experiencing {all things|everything|all-things|things}}. That {would|might|could} be God.
We see that a lot of this is suggested synonyms and alternate word orders. The spinner then offered the following renditions. The first is what they call a "SUPER UNIQUE" spin, and the following three are just generic spins.
The first, "SUPER UNIQUE" spin:
There is a 18th-century bishop/thinker called George Berkeley who'd a type of "evidence" for god's lifetime. Their documents do not convert also nicely to contemporary Language and are fairly traditional. And additional, I actually donot truly concur that he demonstrates a judeo christian lord, at all. However it creates a thought experiment that is good. I will operate the chance of downright or oversimplifying misrepresenting him below.
He was an idealist, thinking just in religious creatures with the capacity of perceiving these suggestions and ideas. When it comes to content earth, he'd declare because they are recognized or those activities really do occur, however they exist just within thoughts. Because our scientific data plainly exhibits a determination in character, and things occur even if we'renot currently taking a look at them, there has to be religious or a brain being with the capacity of therefore sustaining their lifestyle, and experiencing everything. That might be God.
The second spin:
There was a 18th-century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who'd some sort of "evidence" for the existence of god. His writings are fairly archaic and don't translate also well to contemporary Language. And additional, I actually donot truly concur that he establishes a judeo christian lord, in the slightest. But it creates a great thought experiment. I'll operate the chance of misrepresenting him here or downright oversimplifying.
He was an idealist, thinking merely in spiritual creatures capable of perceiving these tips and ideas. When it comes to material earth, he would claim because they are recognized or those activities actually do exist, nevertheless they exist simply within brains. Things occur even when we'renot taking a look at them, and because our scientific research clearly shows a determination in dynamics, there must be a mind or religious being capable of therefore retaining their lifestyle, and experiencing things. That might be God.
The third:
There was a 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a kind of "evidence" for god's lifetime. Their documents do not convert also effectively to modern Language and are fairly conservative. And further, I don't definitely concur that he proves a judeo christian lord, at all. Nevertheless it produces a great thought experiment. I will run the danger of downright or oversimplifying misrepresenting him here.
He was an idealist, believing merely in ideas and religious beings with the capacity of perceiving those tips. Are you aware that content world, he would declare those activities do occur, however they exist merely within heads or because they are recognized. Since our empirical data clearly shows a determination in character, and things exist even though we aren't taking a look at them, there should be a head or spiritual being capable of experiencing everything, and thus sustaining their existence. That would be God.
And the fourth:
There was a 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had some sort of "proof" for god's existence. Their articles are fairly archaic and don't convert too well to modern English. And further, I really don't actually concur that he proves a judeochristian god, by any means. Nonetheless it produces a thought experiment that is good. I'll manage the chance of misrepresenting him here or downright oversimplifying.
He was an idealist, feeling solely in ideas and spiritual creatures capable of perceiving these suggestions. Are you aware that material earth, he'd claim those ideas actually do occur, nevertheless they exist only within thoughts or as they are observed. Things occur even when we'renot currently looking at them, and because our scientific evidence clearly reveals a determination in nature, there must be psychic or a brain being effective at experiencing things, and thereby preserving their lifestyle. That could be God.
First Impressions?
I've seen a lot of stuff like this on Steemit. I have chalked most of it up to poor English skills; probably from non-native speakers. But this is making me question that assumption.
- feeling solely in ideas
- the documents do not convert also effectively to modern Language
- I don't definitely concur
- I'll operate the chance of misrepresenting him
- I will run the danger of downright or oversimplifying misrepresenting him here.
- thinking just in religious creatures with the capacity of perceiving these suggestions
- there has to be religious or a brain being with the capacity of therefore sustaining their lifestyle
Those are just a few choice snippets... Now, I'm not the most skilled writer in the world. But I'd like to think my work is a bit more intelligible than that!
Clearly there is much room for improvement. I tested the Turing Spin, to see if that was capable of producing something passable...
The Turing Spinner
Right away I noticed that the "Spintax" generated by this spinner was much shorter.
{There was an 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a {kind|sort} of "{proof|evidence}" for the existence of god.|} His writings {{are somewhat|are} archaic and {don't|do not} {{translate too|translate} well|translate} to modern English|{don't|do not} {{translate too|translate} well|translate} to modern English and {are somewhat|are} archaic}. And {further|additionally}, I {don't|do not} {really|actually} {agree|concur} that he {proves|shows|demonstrates|establishes} a {judeo-christian|judeo christian} {god, by any means|god}. But it makes for {{a good|an excellent|a great} thought experiment|a thought experiment that is good}. {I'll|I will} run the risk of {oversimplifying or {outright|instantaneously} misrepresenting him here|misrepresenting him here or {outright|instantaneously} oversimplifying|{outright|instantaneously} or oversimplifying misrepresenting him here}.
He was an idealist, believing {only|just} in {{ideas|thoughts|notions} and spiritual beings capable of perceiving those {ideas|thoughts|notions}|spiritual beings capable of perceiving those {ideas|thoughts|notions} and {ideas|thoughts|notions}}. {As for the|When it comes to} material {world|universe}, {he would|he'd} say {those things {actually|really} do exist, but they exist {only|just} inside of {minds|heads|thoughts} or as {they are|they can be|they're} perceived|as {they are|they can be|they're} perceived or those things {actually|really} do exist, but they exist {only|just} inside of {minds|heads|thoughts}}. Since our empirical evidence {clearly|certainly} {shows|demonstrates} a {persistence|continuity} in nature, and things exist even when {we are|we have been|we're}n't looking at them, there must be a {mind|head} or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and {thereby|thus|therefore} maintaining their existence.{ That would be God.|}
It looks like it focuses more on entire phrases and even sentences, compared to the other spinner which took a heavy handed approach to replacing words with synonyms. Like thee previous spinner, this one produced a "SUPER UNIQUE" spin, and three others which appear to be more generic.
The first, "SUPER UNIQUE" spin:
His writings do not translate to modern English and are archaic. And additionally, I do not actually concur that he shows a judeo christian god. But it makes for a thought experiment that is good. I will run the risk of misrepresenting him here or instantaneously oversimplifying.
He was an idealist, believing just in spiritual beings capable of perceiving those thoughts and thoughts. When it comes to material universe, he'd say as they can be perceived or those things really do exist, but they exist just inside of heads. Since our empirical evidence certainly demonstrates a continuity in nature, and things exist even when we have beenn't looking at them, there must be a head or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and thus maintaining their existence.
Spin number two:
There was an 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a kind of "proof" for the existence of god. His writings don't translate well to modern English and are somewhat archaic. And further, I don't actually agree that he demonstrates a judeo christian god, by any means. But it makes for a great thought experiment. I'll run the risk of outright or oversimplifying misrepresenting him here.
He was an idealist, believing only in spiritual beings capable of perceiving those notions and notions. As for the material universe, he would say those things actually do exist, but they exist only inside of heads or as they are perceived. Since our empirical evidence clearly demonstrates a continuity in nature, and things exist even when we aren't looking at them, there must be a head or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and thus maintaining their existence. That would be God.
Spin three:
There was an 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a kind of "evidence" for the existence of god. His writings do not translate too well to modern English and are archaic. And additionally, I don't really concur that he shows a judeo-christian god. But it makes for a great thought experiment. I'll run the risk of misrepresenting him here or instantaneously oversimplifying.
He was an idealist, believing just in ideas and spiritual beings capable of perceiving those ideas. When it comes to material universe, he'd say as they're perceived or those things actually do exist, but they exist only inside of thoughts. Since our empirical evidence clearly shows a persistence in nature, and things exist even when we'ren't looking at them, there must be a mind or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and thereby maintaining their existence.
Spin four:
There was an 18th century bishop/philosopher named George Berkeley who had a kind of "evidence" for the existence of god. His writings do not translate well to modern English and are archaic. And additionally, I do not really concur that he establishes a judeo-christian god. But it makes for a great thought experiment. I'll run the risk of misrepresenting him here or instantaneously oversimplifying.
He was an idealist, believing just in ideas and spiritual beings capable of perceiving those notions. As for the material universe, he'd say those things actually do exist, but they exist just inside of minds or as they're perceived. Since our empirical evidence certainly demonstrates a continuity in nature, and things exist even when we'ren't looking at them, there must be a mind or spiritual being capable of experiencing all things, and therefore maintaining their existence. That would be God.
First Impressions Of The Turing Spins
These don't actually seem to be significantly better than the first at producing passing English. But they might require a bit more attention to detail, because they preserve more of the original language. That being said, some of the mistakes are critical.
- The "SUPER UNIQUE" spin is so unique, it doesn't even tell you who it's talking about.
- things exist even when we'ren't looking at them
- things exist even when we have beenn't looking at them
- His writings do not translate well to modern English and are archaic. (A logical error that all spins display)
I think it would require a bit more work to determine that these are spun. But it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
Final Thoughts
This is obviously just a tentative first step towards understanding spun content and learning to spot it. What strikes me is that I see a lot of stuff like this on a daily basis.
I think we have to take a much more critical eye when evaluating content. Even native speakers make mistakes and fail to spot them during revision. So I can see how hard it must be for authors for whom English is a second (or third or more!) language. But it seems to me that when the English is poor and full of mistakes, there is a high probability that it is spun content in some form or another.
I think we should encourage foreign language writers to ask help from native speakers, if they choose to write in English. Because we need to start holding authors to a higher standard. I want Steemit to remain open and inclusive to all people. I just don't want it to come at the expense of rampant fraud and abuse.