Some thoughts on sharing, provoked initially by the Gorsuch plagiarism case as reported by whyevolutionistrue and given the final push when I saw a post on and reblogged it.


I first started thinking about this post yesterday, and then a few minutes ago something else  occurred that prompted me to actually create it. 


Yesterday I read on whyevolutionistrue about an accusation of plagiarism against the US Supreme Court’s most recent appointee, Justice Gorsuch. That post makes it very obvious indeed that Mr Gorsuch is indeed guilty, and to an extent that would have earned any student an automatic zero for cheating. 

The second post, the one the actually got me started writing this post, comes from, and those of you who follow this site should already have seen it by way of this. If you have not yet seen this post, titled “What if the Tables Were Turned and This was an Autistic Workplace?” I urge you to do so. 

The first post I have mentioned in this section shows Gorsuch seeing something he appreciated and making use of it an unacceptable fashion that gave no credit at all to the person who had actually done the work. My reaction to the second demonstrated one (there are several) example of the…


I reblogged the post, with the addition of a line of my own explaining where I had found it. However, because the real work had been done by the original blogger, I then opened the editing screen and made two small but important alterations (as well as a few others not relevant to this post):

  1. I made my mention of the site from which I had reblogged it into a link.
  2. Because all credit or otherwise that might be due to the post belongs rightfully to its creator I turned off the comments section on my reblog.

If the post in which you are using content from elsewhere also contains significant work of your own, then it makes sense to keep the comments section open.

There is one golden rule when using content from other sources in a piece of your own: always give full credit to the original creator. Thus when I am sharing multiple pieces in the course of one post my own usual approach is to link to the source website of each piece the first time I mention it by name, and link to each piece individually. Also, if boosting the appearance of my own post by using pictures or screenshots from the other site I format them as links. This is especially important with screenshots, as they are not automatically attributed to the site to whom you are linking. 

It is nice if someone is impressed enough by your stuff to want to share it, but to put it very mildly it takes some of the gloss off if they omit to mention where they got it from (btw I have direct experience of this – when the Lynn News printed a report on the inaugural Autism Awareness Cup every word of that report had also appeared in my blog post about it, which had peen published some days previously, and no credit was accorded to me).


These pictures are of items that will be going under the hammer in James and Sons May aujction (22nd, 23rd and 24th of May, all three days at our own premises in central Fakenham):

Lot 499
Both sides of the brooch
The front of the brooch.
The back of the reverse (not the markings at the bottom). The reflections are unavoidable when taking a close up of an object this tiny and this shiny.
Lot 500 – a lot that required many images
both faces of the medals in one shot
Closer ups of each face of the medals


The back the middle medal, showing the naming.
The three images I took to show the markings on the rim of this medal combined to form one…
…and the individuals


Finally, completing the gallery for his lot, a close up of the cap badge.