By First, the original text is actually based on a very real story and was written by someone who was actually a victim.
You can’t plagiarize someone else’s words. If you copy someone’s words, you are plagiarizing them. This is why I’m so adamant about linking to Wikipedia, because it lets you use words from a real source and not just someone’s own opinion.
But as far as this particular article is concerned, it doesn’t matter whether you’re following it or not. The original story is the source that the article is based on. So if you want to link to it, you could always copy the article. However, it’s important to note that this article is not a direct source for the article. It was written by someone who was affected by the story.
Yes, the story is a direct source to the article. But the article is also not a direct source to the story. It is the story’s original source. So if you want to link to the article, you can copy the article, but you will have to quote it or paraphrase the article.
The article is a direct source to the story.
The article is not a direct source to the story. The article is the actual source of the story.
the article is a direct source to the story. The article is not a direct source to the story. The article is the actual source of the story.
The difference between plagiarism and being copied is that, if you are able to quote the original source, you are copying the article as-is. If you are not able to, you are not copying the article as-is. If you are able to quote the article as-is, you are just plagiarizing it, but you are not copying the article as-is.
The difference between plagiarism and being copied is that, if you are able to quote the original source, you are copying the article as-is. If you are not able to, you are not copying the article as-is. If you are able to quote the article as-is, you are just plagiarizing it, but you are not copying the article as-is.
