What he means is, even if you find the stuff on other people's websites, don't do a word for word copy. Try to make it original somehow. My comments for the Did-you-knows are what he's getting at, I think.
1. Female. *points to the postbit*
2. I was talking about the featurette and the article about GSDS, both of which were copied word-for-word from the URLs he added at the bottom of each page. If anything, I said that your did-you-knows were inaccurate (at least, for the first issue; the ones for this issue seem to be fine, albeit a little subjective with the "Ash needs to grow a pair" comment, considering anyone who tries to punch out Mewtwo most likely has a pair after all).
3. I was
not saying either remove the URLs or paraphrase because even a paraphrase without proper credit is plagiarism. (In fact, if he removed the URLs, that'd actually make things worse because he'd be stripping the articles from any form of credit whatsoever, therefore doing pretty much straight-up theft.) I was saying if he wants to add anything that he found on another website, he needs to ask for permission to use it
and to add full and proper credit, including
correct URLs (i.e., double-checking URLs
before printing, considering the ones he offered for the articles in which he plagiarized are incorrect) and the author's name.
3a. If he doesn't get that permission, he can't use the content. Period. He'd basically be stealing content if he did, which doesn't look good for his paper. Thus, he'd have to come up with something completely different in order to fill his paper.
3b. As a note, this doesn't mean you can't say things like "we did a study about Platinum, and here's our review that we've compiled ourselves" or "we obtained information from the official Nintendo website Pokemon.com about an upcoming event." It just means you can't use someone else's article on a fansite or other non-official-news site -- paraphrased or not -- without permission and credit first.
4. I was also saying that if someone else sent in those articles that happened to be plagiarized, allowing them to appear in his paper without fact-checking and verifying sources and permission first would still mean he's plagiarizing either way, considering he's the editor and the one posting the shebang. So, just because someone else might've sent it in doesn't mean he's off the hook in terms of plagiarism.
4a. Also, that even if someone else sent in the article, it's his job to find someone to proofread it
and his job to make sure it's correct before it appears in his paper. That's what an editor
does.
