OWH multi-part series

[Enhance]

The OWH changed up their website model recently and now locks down certain online content for subscribers only. Months ago, they had a "pay wall" but savvy people who understood cookies or private browsing could get around it with relative ease. That's now impossible unless people are signed in to their accounts.

Anyways, the reason I bring this up is because this new series feels like premium info. to me, of which we have a no posting policy. I know it's not something we traditionally associate with how the OWH does things but, IMO, people sharing direct quotes from it and/or paraphrasing new info. from these new article onto this board is dicey.

I don't follow the recruiting forum much, but, I imagine that Rivals articles that require money to view are not posted or talked about in the recruiting forum. Am I mistaken? Seems like this would technically fall in line with that kind of stuff.

There's a thread in the football forum here.

 

[Enhance]

As a secondary note, where do we fall on whether or not members can paraphrase the content of a paid article like that? In the Deed suggested that people 'do this all the time' with recruiting information.

To me, it's probably to difficult to police people who paraphrase the paid info., but it is something we should discourage, no?

 

[Huskerzoo]

As a secondary note, where do we fall on whether or not members can paraphrase the content of a paid article like that? In the Deed suggested that people 'do this all the time' with recruiting information.

To me, it's probably to difficult to police people who paraphrase the paid info., but it is something we should discourage, no?

My gut reaction is to treat this kind of like I treat plagiarism in my classroom. You can give a short summary with not many details "The article details how HCSF's love of cookies led him to a life long pursuit of football" but I think we should actively discourage a paragraph by paragraph paraphrase. 

 

[Enhance]

My gut reaction is to treat this kind of like I treat plagiarism in my classroom. You can give a short summary with not many details "The article details how HCSF's love of cookies led him to a life long pursuit of football" but I think we should actively discourage a paragraph by paragraph paraphrase. 

This is my feeling, as well.

There's probably some grey area at times, but in general, if an article says "Person Y said X and turned down W in order to get to outcome Z," and then someone gets on the thread and specifically states all of that data, that's as good as a direct quote.

Perhaps I'm worrying too much, but, it seems like that kind of thread will undoubtedly reveal premium info. For those who frequent the recruiting thread, what's the standard for those who post a paid article from Rivals or Hail Varsity? Do they even ever get posted? @Mavric?

 

[Mavric]

Yeah, I think we should probably not allow this.  It was different under the OWH’s old format because they used to let you see a certain number of articles per month before you had to pay but this new system doesn’t let you see anything.  So we should probably not allow them to post any of it here.  Might be good to post a note about this somewhere.

Not gonna lie, I probably push the envelope a lot on recruiting info.  I never post direct quotes but I give a quick summary fairly regularly.  Which probably isn’t right but isn’t exclusive to HuskerBoard either.  I try to stay away from someone posting a Tweet about a paid article and asking what it said but others will sometimes answer.  So it might be a good time to crack down on any obvious direct quotes all around.

 

[Enhance]

Thanks @Mavric.

For clarification, when you say "probably not allow them to post any of it here," do you mean we should nix the thread or just make sure nobody directly quotes anything from the article(s)?

Edit - this is an example of what I'm talking about, too. New information but paraphrased. The argument I've seen posed from some posters is "always post articles from sites and discuss their content, not being able to do so is like not being able to talk about a movie no one has seen." Not a pure 1:1 analogy, but I see what they're saying. But, the below just feels weird to me because it's as good as a direct quote.

I have read the first 2 parts.  Nothing earth shattering or surprising in the story so far, but there are a lot of interesting nuggets of information.  Most interesting thing that I read was how Ronnie Green was leaning towards firing Eichorst this fall, and he made the final decision after the Northern Illinois loss.  Again, this isn't breaking news, but the narrative around the time is good to read.  I also enjoyed the behind the scenes stuff about Moos becoming the AD.

Either way, I guess I'm fine leaving the thread open so long as they're not giving away the entirety of the article or directly quoting. It seems like it would be a losing battle or a rough hill to try and die on.

 

[Saunders]

Either way, I guess I'm fine leaving the thread open so long as they're not giving away the entirety of the article or directly quoting. It seems like it would be a losing battle or a rough hill to try and die on.

This is my vote. We're not going to stop it 100%, and a I think a general summary and discusstion of the article is fine. 

 

[Mavric]

Yeah, I think it’s fine to have the discussion without the direct quotes.