• @TrendigOsthyvel
    link
    164 months ago

    Cool, looks like a lot of video to watch, I’ll take your word for it. Not too surprising thinking about it.

    • @hOrni
      link
      36
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Maybe not surprising, but still disappointing. I liked IH videos, but knowing that a lot of it is stolen, puts a stain on it. But at least it explains why his videos tend to disappear from his channel.

      Edit: The IH part starts at around 1:25:00 and lasts 20 minutes.

      • @TrendigOsthyvel
        link
        74 months ago

        Today’s MVP!! And I agree, it puts a smear over all the content.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -94 months ago

        guy covers historical event doesn’t rewrite history, instead takes what someone else has written about event doesn’t use own fotos, uses someone elses foto instead makes mistakes

        I am not saying this is a big nothing burger, but his only real mistakes was not to list his sources.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          204 months ago

          Yeah, no. He almost entirely verbatim copied the text and wording on the original article and shuffled some words around to try and make it less obvious (and failed). It is blatant plagiarism, there is no other way to call it. This was no innocent mistake of forgetting to list a source. Watch the hbomberguy video segment about it, it paints a very clear picture.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -84 months ago

            It is blatant plagiarism

            yes, and a solution could have been to cite sources.

            This was no innocent mistake of forgetting to list a source

            I don’t think, that not-citing-sources is an innocent mistake.

            Watch the hbomberguy video segment about it, it paints a very clear picture

            I did. I does paint a very colorful picture. Full of opinion and sarcasm and rhethoric.

            Here is a rule-of-thumb to decide if an argument was convincing because it had good content, or because it was well written: If the content was good, it will be easy for you explain to a 3rd party. If only the presentation was good, then you will have a hard time convincing others.

            • Herbal Gamer
              link
              fedilink
              04 months ago

              Full of opinion and sarcasm and rhethoric.

              It became annoyingly fingerpointy for me personally.

              If the content was good, it will be easy for you explain to a 3rd party. If only the presentation was good, then you will have a hard time convincing others.

              Articles can be written perfectly, but that doesn’t mean I’ll read them. Give me someone narrating the whole thing with entertaining animations in the background and you’ve created something interesting and engaging to me.