Talk:Plagiarism/Archive 1

message: ElKevbo, good idea but you've overdone it. Some of these are well-known, and exmple are useful. I'd write articles for one or two, except I'd have nothing to add beyond their websites. I've added back a few I know to be well-known. Deciding where to stop is, of course, not clear-cut.DGG 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: links

message: If I read about someone else's idea, and am influenced by that idea, but I write something that is quite my own work, is it considered plagiarism?
:No, but it's probably just good manners to acknowledge the other person's idea. Lee M 04:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  influenced by someone's ideas 

message: === General issue ===
What is this? Copying your own work? Someone please explain, remove or edit it please.
:In academia, self-plagiarism would be like turning in one assignment to more than on instructor without informing both.--Fallout boy 07:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are certainly reasons why a journal or professor may not desire to accept a paper already submitted to another, such as limited reviewer resources, but the question is whether this is properly called plagiarism or just some other form of rule-breaking. Deco 09:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-plagiarism

message: What is this? Copying your own work? Someone please explain, remove or edit it please.
:In academia, self-plagiarism would be like turning in one assignment to more than on instructor without informing both.--Fallout boy 07:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General issue 

message: :There are certainly reasons why a journal or professor may not desire to accept a paper already submitted to another, such as limited reviewer resources, but the question is whether this is properly called plagiarism or just some other form of rule-breaking. Deco 09:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concurrent-submission is not necesarily self-plagiarism 

message: I noticed a plagiarism, a 1982 Ph.D. dissertation of Northwestern University, Ill, USA. Is that also a "business" case? Although at the web ( http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.htm ), I kept the names secret, I may tell that to any people who understand the subject (Petri net, etc).
The case is especially gross, as the advisor of that dissertation is a highy decorated, social type -- an (old) editor-in-chief of IEEE Computer magazine, etc.
The plagiarism glares when the absurd (unproven & provably false) claims get omitted.
The jury had to block that, until at least they understood what that is.
The IEEE TransSoftEng article (1983), after that Ph.D. is false in each figure -- except the 4th, which is trivially the similar of the signs of SARA/UCLA-graphs (System ARchitects Apprentice, of UCLA, after UCLA graphs). Has no peer really ever traced those figures?
FerzenR 10:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dissertation plagiarism, in the U.S.A. 

message: The paragraph on 'Why Plagiarism is a Problem' seems to suffer from POV. Its explicit goal seems to be to prove to the reader that plagiarism is ethically wrong and a societal ill. The whole thing is essentially several weak arguments, beginning with an argument which attempts to connect plagiarism with death, that attempt to blow plagiarism entirely out of proportion. Unfounded, vague, and subjective statements such as the "Plagiarism also holds back progress." have no place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not be used as a medium for extolling certain editors' views on academic prudence. The paragraph should either be reworked into a series of argumets associated with individuals or groups, such as professors, teachers, or scholars in the field, or scrapped entirely. Geuiwogbil 10:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've moved it here for cleanup. The claims that plagiarism can lead to wrongful death are anecdotal even if true. The claims that plagiarism forces other students to plagiarize is true but unsupported and it doesn't emphasize why plagiarism is a problem in the first place. The claims of Asia universities ignoring plagiarism from foreign students for money seem like unsupported slander to me, and the singling out of Asia as a breeding ground for plagiarism seems to overlook plagiarism worldwide. The part about Ian Firns and the subsequent resignation of two university figures is good though. Deco 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential NPOV Issues 

message: How is plagiarism a concept of the modern age? It isn't really an issue of intellectual property, it's taking credit for something you didn't do. It applied just as much at the beginning of written language as it does today.
Matthew Crumley
* Agreed - removed the sentence. -- Barfooz 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people don't agree. I've repeatedly heard people express the view that "plagiarism" is in fact a modern concept. It isn't really an issue of taking credit for something you didn't do, it's the concept that you take credit for something you didn't do and the general perception that you shouldn't do that. (To give an ill-fitting example: It's like calling a dog that takes a toy and aims to keep it a thief.) --Ibn Battuta 09:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plagiarism is a concept of the modern age? 

message: i don't see the use of the section "famous examples". as we see in the
discussion page even older and arguably resolved cases are highly 
controversial and the motivation in taking sides often  very political. At the
very least, cases still investigated must wait. the purpose of the article is
to define plagiarism, not to condemn individual cases of plagiarism. this can 
be done in the articles on the persons involved (provided the case is already
closed) 130.113.105.43 14:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take an example from Wikipedia: examine pages on USN submarines and compare the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships pages on them. They are identical.  Trekphiler 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples 

message: From the Definition section:
:Plagiarism is the use of another person’s work (this could be his or her words, products or ideas) for personal advantage, without proper acknowledgement of the original work, and with the intention of passing it off as one's own work. Plagiarism may occur deliberately (with the intention to deceive) or accidentally (due to poor referencing).
How can it occur accidentally due to poor referencing and with the intention of passing it off as one's own work? —Guanaco 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the student lacks the intention of passing it off as his own. —Guanaco 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether from carelessness, lack of diligence, or lack of education about plagiarism, a student who is passing referenced material off as his own is plagiarizing. Maybe the definition needs to be edited for clarity.69.6.162.160 14:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The section entitled Why plagiarism occurs makes several claims that appear to be taken from a work or works of research, but does not cite any specific work of research. Could the contributor responsible for it provide sources? Thanks. Deco 02:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Why plagiarism occurs'' needs sources 

message: No mention of people who think themselves as the ultimate altruists, when they help other 
people (or their children) in homework/etc, in tight time, illness, etc. (Just as the evil
consequences of plagiarism got left out, we leave out these value-judgments, too, I infer.)
((By the way, stage-6, the last stage, of moral development, as Kohlberg listed, is able to 
weigh conscience v. law, when they differ -- for example, to help disadvantaged people, 
affirmatively. Do we leave this discussion to the judgment of the reader? Or, should we 
weigh the good-v.-evil contexts? And offer non-plagiaristic alternatives to ... ))
No mention of 5-6-people groups in courses, where only single student writes all of "their" 
program/paper/etc. Do those other students count as plagiarists (esp. if they have not even 
thought alternative-coding, themselves)?
(I would not strain the imagination by questioning whether that single student who wrote the 
software would also get a bad label, as (in case, that were) the lecturer meant them to collaborate, not single-person job.)
FerzenR 05:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  altruism & plagiarism 

message: Similar to the note above (under "Dispute tag"): I didn't add a  tag but many (most?) of the "famous" examples of plagarism lack citations.  If they're famous, we should be able to find something that has been published about them to justify our assertions that (a) it was indeed plagarism and (b) it is a famous example of plagarism.  Please add citations and references if you know of any or have the time and desire to locate them.  At some point someone (me, for example) might begin removing uncited famous examples if no citations or references can be easily located and added.  Not a threat - just trying to uphold standards and such.  --ElKevbo 05:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous examples section lacks citations 

message: Is the extra whitespace in the middle of the Definition section intentional? Ken 05:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra whitespace 

message: Since no one has fixed this, and I see no way to fix it, I have removed it as OR and self-reference.  It also contains a doubtful statement.
Wikipedia articles often do not cite sources, but contributors are increasingly being admonished to do so. Wikipedia articles do not involve personal credit to any author, so there is no plagiarism. (However anything copied from another source should certainly be cited, and copyright issues should also be taken into consideration.)
The self-reference is manifest, and serves no vital need in this article.  The OR is the specific application of plagiarism rules to Wikipedia, and the doubtful statement is that Wikipedia edits cannot be credited to a specific author: the history function renders the assertion clearly false.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR self-reference removed 

message: I Added the anti-anti-plagiarism software section. Kantale
::Doesn't that refer just to open source software publication--at least this is what it seems the link is talking about--shouldn't in go there, not here. If it does stay here it needs some context--do I understand right that it is a way of protecting open source code so it will remain open source?DGG 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Anti-Plagiarism software 

message: I corrected some grammar, spelling, and extra spaces in the article.The United Sates of America office of research Integrityhas been changed to The United States of America Office of Research Integrity
There are so many problems in this article!
FreddyWare 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar, spelling, extra spaces 

message: I've once heard/read about a film director/writer(?)/whoever(?) who was accused to have plagiarized from another film. He claimed it was a coincidence and he had come up with this idea himself... and went to do his next film about a guy who creates some piece of work just to find out that someone else had done the same before. As you hear, I don't really recall any details—but in case you do, I think this example would clearly deserve getting onto the list. --Ibn Battuta 09:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film example 

message: I suggest the following reorganization of the sections so that the general information in logical order comes first followed by the examples. 
*Frequency of plagiarism 
*Organizational publications 
*Punishments 
*Examples of anti-plagiarism software 
*Famous accusations and examples of plagiarism 
**Academia and Scholarship 
**Computer Games 
** Film 
**Journalism 
**Literature 
**Music 
**Politics 
**Wikipedia 
**Other instances 
The Practical advice section as written seems a bit preachy and morally POV 
I will work on expanding the general information about plagiarism including a anti-plagiarism section with explanations of "Honor Codes" and anti-plagiarism software.  I think if this article has a great start and that with a little work that clean-up tag will be unnecesary and we may even get this to a featured status. Ratherhaveaheart 22:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions about organization and NPOV

message: Shouldn't there be a category for people who comit plagiarism?  It would clearly be controversial, but not more than Anti-Semitic people for example. Mhym 07:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: When i try to click on a database or an actors name I can't get to it and am redirected to this page.--Jack Cox 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but moving it to Academic Dishonesty was pretty disruptive to Wikipedia (no discussion, incorrect capitalization, the fact that Academic dishonesty already exists as a different article, no fixing of double redirects), so I moved it back. —Angr 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What the Hell did this do to Crystal acid database?

message: It's interesting that the distinction between the above is not as easy to express as one might anticipate.
:Imagine Michaelangelo's Piata. Suppose we were to discover he had a 'ghost sculptor' (like a ghost writer, but for sculpture). What would that make him? --Ludvikus 07:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism v. Forgery 

message: Each section, each kind of plagiarism should contain direct links to the typical examples of plagiarism.
They should coexist with links to lists of authors accused in plagiarism.
Some reserve of examples should be at this discussion or even in a special section.
Each example should be either self-evident, or refer to a respectable source, which qualify some product as plagiarism.
I have some examples of self-plagiarism, but I already have used them at Multiple publication.
Should I cite them here too, or it will be self-plagiarism? dima 07:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples. 

message: I moved the following three external links to this page before deleting them with notes why they don't meet external link guidelines:
* Article checker, Online script that checks published and unpublished text for plagiarism using online archives, online sources, and major search engine results
::Commercial site that shows up mainly in comments on internet marketing blogs.
* Plagiarism at the College Level (article)
::There are no navigation buttons from this page, but the rest of the website consists of pages (and pages) of free essays. 
* A Contribution to the Critique of the Political Economy of Plagiarism, Grade Inflation and Standard English, Reg Johanson
::An 8-page unpublished academic pager that meets the non-publisheds/self-published guidelines and authored by a seemingly non-notable academic. 
Here are the remaining external links for reference and any comments/discussion associated with sourcing guidelines. Schneier.com is a blog, which technically doesn't meet the guidelines for a reliable source (and it's not supporting any specific statement anyway), but this one seems to be related to a publication and has a very detailed discussion.
* American Historical Association, "Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct" (2005) 
* What is the price of plagiarism? A The Christian Science Monitor article
* The Assessment in Higher Education web site's plagiarism page contains links to a variety of resources (articles, books, cheat sites, etc) on plagiarism.
* "Plagiary: Cross-disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification." journal
* Plagiarism and Academia: Personal Experience, Bruce Schneier
* JISC Plagiarism Advisory Service Provides advice and guidance to UK learning institutions.
Flowanda 10:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your addition.  Wikipedia is not a collection or directory of links and this link does not add to one's understanding of plagiarism.  --ElKevbo 19:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal and discussion of external links 

message: The Cassandra Clare plagiarism sources do not seem to meet the guidelines for  verifiability. The links are to a personal wiki and internet forums/blogs written by an anonymous user (although some of the responders may have identified themselves). I tried to find a news article or other third-party sources that had followed up or reported on these claims and could not, nor could I find any third-party news sources quoting the websites/owners as experts or authorities. Since the author's book is newly published by Simon & Schuster, and there is an unbelievable amount of chatter in the blogs that will direct anyone to those internet sites with or without Wikipedia, I think we either need to find stronger sources that meet the guidelines or remove the information until there is third-party verification.
I want to be clear that I am not questioning the content or authors of these sources, but I am trying to follow this: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people."   Flowanda 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The only good link was to the Telegraph and that article had nothing to do with the alleged plagiarism.  Therefore I have removed the material.  Good call!  --ElKevbo 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cassandra Clare sources 

message: The first sentence of this article plagiarizes dictionary.com. Punctured Bicycle 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  I've replaced the definition with the one used in this article for quite some time with no contention.  For those curious, the definition was replaced by Alton32 a few months ago.  This was his or her only edit.  We need to be more vigilant of edits made to this article as it is a frequent target of vandalism.  --ElKevbo 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony, anyone? 

message: There are problems with the organisation of this article.
One of the main ones is that academic plagiarism is a much more specific area than plagiarism in general. Most academic research is related to academic plagiarism, e.g. plagiarism by students for academic credit. Since the wider definiton of academic plagiarism could also include plagiarism by tutors/academics/professors the category of student plagiarism could also be considered.
Some areas that the article would need to consider include: the extent of student plagiarism, methods of plagiarism prevention, methods of plagiarism detection.
Splitting the article would create more focused areas for different types of readers.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.16.60 (talk) 2007-05-13T17:19:30
: I am not convinced that plagiarism by students is so qualitatively different from other plagiarism that it makes sense to write a separate article about it. If plagiarism is particularly common among students, it is probably because they have a greater incentive to plagiarize than other groups of people; a student has a particularly narrow interest in making somebody else believe that he is able to produce original works, and little or no reason to care for said works after this interest has been served. And non-students who have trouble being original usually have better options for escaping the requirement that they must be original (say, by choosing career paths that depend on other skills than originality, thereby eliminating the need to cheat), than a student has for escaping the school's demands. –Henning Makholm 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article 

message: Why is there nothing in this article about how the idea of plagiarism is a historical novelty in the last three or four centuries? 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 2007-07-18T16:38:39
: Because nobody wrote it yet. If you have at your disposal a respectable scholarly source on the history of concepts of intellectual ownership and how today's universal expectation of originality in intellectual work came about, then by all means do write a section on these matters. It would improve the article to have one. –Henning Makholm 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Novelty

message: Based on the comments above, I've started a discussion on pruning the growing list of examples and how and if to edit/remove them. I think the examples are starting to dilute the main article and should be mixed in with the main content only if they help explain certain points or moved to a category listing page (or whatever they're called). I consider separate examples sections to be little better than trivia sections...they're very easy for drive-by editors to just cut-and-paste content into a variety of articles without having to incorporate their edits into existing content or even read the article. (Please note that this is a general observation, not a comment on the edits that spurred this discussion.)
At the very least, the section on MLK, Bruce Lee, Alex Hailey and Dutch Shell can be reduced to one or two sentences and the remaining content deleted or moved elsewhere...I'm sure there are other examples. Any comments? Flowanda | Talk 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning the examples sections 

message: It's topical, but I don't see any mention of it here.  Many editors simply paste text from websites without attribution.  Here's an example commented on by another editor: User talk:Elpiseos Tedickey 11:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As applied to Wikipedia =

message: It would be interesting to contrast the Western academic definition of plagiarism to the classical oriental practice of liberally quoting from the classics without attribution (because learned persons are supposed to know the origins of the quotation? or because universal knowledge is merely discovered, rather than invented? I am not enough of a Sinologist to know which is the case.... please advise!) 91.105.247.68 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Classics 

message: Shouldn't there be anything on translation plagiarism; when you plagiarize something in another language?     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.82.69 (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation plagiarism