Inconsistencies with flagging posted articles as non-original or as copied

Moderating posts on social media sites, such as Publish0x, Uptrennd, read.cash, etc cannot be an easy task. However, what I've come across recently with some moderators flagging articles as being non-original content, is that the rules do not appear to be consistently applied.

Where two different authors use the same reference material, for example, a cryptocurrency's Whitepaper, to write a post. The situation arises where one of the posts is marked as non-original and the other is not, albeit that both posts have used parts of the same Whitepaper.  It therefor occurs that the secondary material i.e. the other author's article, is somehow  used to moderate the post Instead of the original source material, namely the Whitepaper. I hope that this doesn't sound too confusing.

The other situation arises also where the one post is marked as a copy of the other post, simply because they have material in them which is sourced from a common reference document. So in Uptrennd's environment, the one post is then flagged as copy of the other and gets down-voted, whilst the other remains upvoted simply on the basis that it was posted earlier. This is obviously  embarrassing and vexing for the author who has been down-voted and flagged as copying the other author. 

I guess that it isn't easy for a moderator, who may be overwhelmed by the sheer number of posts that they have to moderate, to adjudicate these matters. But a little bit more diligence in checking common sources will go along way to avoiding the discomfort occasioned to authors, especially where both authors list common source documents in their list of reference material. 

Nonetheless, thank you to the moderators who carry out a sometimes thankless task of moderating articles posted on social media sites such as this one.

Thank you for reading this.