ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Law & Legal Issues

Web Publishing Ethics – How Web Publishers Can Degrade Intellectual Property

Updated on September 19, 2011


Just when I thought I had witnessed the height of idiotic editing, a web publisher comes along with a worst-case scenario of horrible editing that can threaten the integrity of any writer on the internet.

Image by Robert G. Kernodle
Image by Robert G. Kernodle

Insanely Bad Editing

I have previously pointed out the apparently common practice of bad writers’ demolishing good writers’ original words, and then re-publishing badly re-written articles to the bad writers’ blogs:

The saga continues, as I have encountered yet another case of unethical web publishing where my name is credited to an embarrassingly ... incompetent re-write ... of my ... original article ..., The Word Fluidism – Inflating Its Definition Ruins Its Value


Bad Editing 101 – A Sentence-By-Sentence Analysis

  • To illustrate my case, I present photographs overlaid with text to avoid posting duplicate content, in violation of Hubpages terms of service.
  • I use the letter, “O”, to stand for “Original article”, and the letter, “R”, to stand for “Re-Write”.
  • I use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS to indicate my original words that an offending web publisher changed, as well as his or her fabricated words substituted for my original words.

Original Article And Bad Re-Write - Comparison Of Wording Of Selected Sentences - Click On Image To Enlarge For Reading

Image by Robert G. Kernodle
Image by Robert G. Kernodle
Image by Robert G. Kernodle
Image by Robert G. Kernodle
Image by Robert G. Kernodle
Image by Robert G. Kernodle


Problems With Re-Wording Explained

Original Wording 
WORD is prcise, TERM is general 
VALUE establihes my intended metaphor, APPEAL denies it 
I mean individual units of language, NOT groups of language units 
CREATE is more creative, PRODUCE is more mechanical, FREQUENT does not mean COMMON
I mean WORD, not PHRASE
LITERALLY does not mean PRACTICALLY, DIFFERENT is a grammatically correct, DIVERSE is not
Selected words from the original article, THE WORD FLUIDISM-INFLATING ITS DEFINITION RUINS ITS VALUE, compared to their altered versions in an illegal re-publication on which the original author's name still appears.



I have shown selected examples of bad editing. I have NOT shown the entire extent of this particular wrongdoing, however. I simply do NOT have the time. I can only assume that the disasterous regress of my original article's integrity continues in the hands of a careless web publisher.

Each instance of word alteration, without fail, causes one of the following destructive effects to intellectual property:

  • ruined shade of word meaning
  • substantially changed sentence meaning
  • grossly incorrect grammatical structure, either through poor choices or poor placements of words
  • destroyed compositional consistency and sabotaged tone of writing.

By altering my original article without permission, and by attributing my name to an inferior version of the original, the unnamed web publisher violates both my copyright and the publisher terms of use at the website where the article first appeared. This web publisher misrepresents my writing by attaching my name to his or her hideous mutation.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment