Online Plagiarism
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
It depends on the context. If you plagiarize in an academic paper, the consequences are the same whether the content came from an online source or from a hardcopy book.
If you plagiarize in a blog or a post online, someone may point it out to you. That's the whole punishment. In fact, in that context, suppose you read something and agree with it whole-heartedly. In such an informal setting, why would you necessarily re-write it to express the exact same idea in a slightly different way?
The difference between the two is that in an academnic context, the goal is to generate an original idea or position. It is generally an intellectual exercise designed to make you think and analyze. Plagiarizing short-circuits that by letting you skip doing your own analysis and thought.
In other contexts, where the goal is simply to state your beliefs or recite facts, plagiarism doesn't interefere with that. In that case, the only issue is your using another person's intellectual property without their consent, which is copyright infringement (unless an exemption applies) and I am sure a clever lawyer can find state common law violations to sue under as well. That there are torts involved suggest that the use is "wrong" though nothing will happen unless the original author wishes to take the matter to litigation. As we all know, most people online today think of copyrights as 'optional' unless the infringer is making actual cash money on it (merely saving money by downloading music/books/games/magazines/movies/programs/etc. you'd otherwise have paid for, apparently does not count).
If you plagiarize in a blog or a post online, someone may point it out to you. That's the whole punishment. In fact, in that context, suppose you read something and agree with it whole-heartedly. In such an informal setting, why would you necessarily re-write it to express the exact same idea in a slightly different way?
The difference between the two is that in an academnic context, the goal is to generate an original idea or position. It is generally an intellectual exercise designed to make you think and analyze. Plagiarizing short-circuits that by letting you skip doing your own analysis and thought.
In other contexts, where the goal is simply to state your beliefs or recite facts, plagiarism doesn't interefere with that. In that case, the only issue is your using another person's intellectual property without their consent, which is copyright infringement (unless an exemption applies) and I am sure a clever lawyer can find state common law violations to sue under as well. That there are torts involved suggest that the use is "wrong" though nothing will happen unless the original author wishes to take the matter to litigation. As we all know, most people online today think of copyrights as 'optional' unless the infringer is making actual cash money on it (merely saving money by downloading music/books/games/magazines/movies/programs/etc. you'd otherwise have paid for, apparently does not count).
I wouldn't think so...but I'm not a lawyer.
I personally think posting someone else's work and claiming it to be your own is unethical and goes against "netiquette"...especially on a science board.There was a guy on another science forum that go to, that was posting some very complex science theories, that were way over my head, but something was funny about them...because the writing style was different. (This guy could barely form sentences on his own, and these posts were well written)
Just to find out a little more of what he was talking about, I googled the subject line, and found another science forum, with an identical word for word post by another completely different person. I joined the forum just to post a reply asking if he ever posted under the name (the guy's name), and he said no...never heard of him.
It was so much fun to re-post the entire original and ask the guy if it looked familiar...we didn't hear much from him after that.
Easy detection?
The administrators could potentially be liable if we knew about it (for example, we were informed and a request was made to delete the plagiarised post but we took no action). More generally, posters are liable for the content of their own posts, in the same way. Views expressed on sciforums are not necessarily the views of administrators or moderators, but are the views of individual posters.
If a poster copies text verbatim from somewhere else and does not acknowledge the source, that poster may be in breach of copyright, though most copyright laws make certain allowances for commentary, review and other types of "fair use".
The safest approach is to always acknowledge sources. A link to the original source is probably sufficient.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
The problem with plagiarism on these boards is that there is a fine line between presenting another persons opinions as your own and adopting another person's opinion because you agree with it, and mirroring their explanation. In an academic context if I take what you wrote, then reword it a bit so that it reads differently but expresses the same thought, that's plagiarism.
In everyday life, though, I can't tell you how many people parrot back what they read in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, presented as if it were their own analysis. I think the whole rise in the popularity of TV pundits is based on people doing just that. If people were doing their own thinking they would not need pundits, they'd need news. Instead, we have entire cable news networks presenting punditry as if it were the same thing as news coverage. People take what Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, et al, say to heart and they adopt it as their own.
In that sense, there are a lot of plagiarizers out there. As a result, and because I don't completely condemn that phenomenon, I think "plagiarism" has its place in informal discussions like these. It's poor form to cut and paste from someone else's work without attribution, and that should be discouraged, but forbidden? I don't think that would be a good idea.
In everyday life, though, I can't tell you how many people parrot back what they read in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, presented as if it were their own analysis. I think the whole rise in the popularity of TV pundits is based on people doing just that. If people were doing their own thinking they would not need pundits, they'd need news. Instead, we have entire cable news networks presenting punditry as if it were the same thing as news coverage. People take what Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, et al, say to heart and they adopt it as their own.
In that sense, there are a lot of plagiarizers out there. As a result, and because I don't completely condemn that phenomenon, I think "plagiarism" has its place in informal discussions like these. It's poor form to cut and paste from someone else's work without attribution, and that should be discouraged, but forbidden? I don't think that would be a good idea.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Not citing sources is dishonest and it serves to keep people from judging sources by their own merit.
If posters continue to not cite the sources for material for their posts, moderators should start deleting these posts for lack of providing sources. It is the duty of a poster to reveal his sources, without which there can not be proper debate. How can you argue with un-sourced material?
For example, someone can quote a long list of events to discredit a particular religion or belief playing on the ignorance of the sources to spread his/her viewpoint.
I always cite the sources I use, especially during a debate. I expect others to do this as well.
If posters continue to not cite the sources for material for their posts, moderators should start deleting these posts for lack of providing sources. It is the duty of a poster to reveal his sources, without which there can not be proper debate. How can you argue with un-sourced material?
For example, someone can quote a long list of events to discredit a particular religion or belief playing on the ignorance of the sources to spread his/her viewpoint.
I always cite the sources I use, especially during a debate. I expect others to do this as well.
Plagiarism: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
Original: Truly, madam, I couldn't give a flying fickle finger of frakkle.
Original: Truly, madam, I couldn't give a flying fickle finger of frakkle.
I confess. In another thread I said "Deserve's got nothing to do with it" without citing the source. I'm so baaaaaaad.
The biggest problem I have is that people don't know what plagiarism is. Not citing a source does not automatically = plagiarism.
that is ridiculous. in any given situation, the possible perspectives are not infinite. just because rush expounded on an particular angle does not mean others cannot use the same rationale to reach the same conclusion
biology and logic compels humans towards a conformity of thought
being original simply means one was the first to publish. it does not mean one is unique or privy to epistemological tools and methods not availed to others
There are no original ideas.