Talk:Plagiarism

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: 217ballah, Puppylover78.

Definition

Plagerized Definition

This definition is exactly like that found in other sources such as dictionary.com Why is there no source citeed for the definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmitchell (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As a writer I can tell you that is a totally inaccurate definition. You CAN NOT plagarize an idea. An idea can not be copyrighted and does not belong to any particular person. That definition needs to be replaced with a correct one. I don't care what dictionary gives it--it is pure and simple WRONG.

71.236.155.174 (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Self-plagiarism?

I propose deleting this very confused and confusing section because it is self-contradictory, and lacks any relevant examples. One cannot be accused of plagiarising oneself. Peterlewis (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one can. This is why, in academic writing, people place things they have previously written in quotes and provide references. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So give some examples, rather than theorising. Quotes in academic writing are to other people, and not oneself. If you don't provide refs to your own previous work, the only thing you can be accused of is stupidity. The whole idea is piffle. Peterlewis (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? First of all, I find your demeanour a little combative. Second, I have no idea what you mean by "Quotes in academic writing are to other people, and not oneself." Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged, p. 1728, see the original link [here). says that plagiarism is "to steal or pass off as one's own (the idea or words of another); use (a created production) without crediting the source; to commit literary theft; present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. That's why people cite their own previous work. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The same for you. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no mention of "self-plagiarism" in your definition. In fact, the definition must exclude "self-plagiarism" because it refers specifically to somebody else's ideas. You continue to evade the problem with this whole artificial and unnecessary concept. Peterlewis (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I bolded the relevant parts for you. Also, please take a moment to review WP:CIVIL. I'm simply here to respond to your original point. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Peterlewis is correct that self-plagiarism is not explicitly mentioned. I think it would help belay his concerns to explain why the emboldened sections justify 'self-plagiarism' as a term: Once you consider that each semi-colon delimits an alternative meaning you can see that the final meaning (present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source) is applicable regardless of whether the original source is your own or anothers.

I make the following observation of the posting I have directly replied to. Whilst Peterlewis's posts could both be considered inflamatory, they could also be considered sincerely ignorant of the meaning of Plagiraism. Given this, it is appropriate to give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume sincerity. PeterLewis could no doubt see that you had made sections of your response bold, so explicitly stating that truth instead of explaining why the bolded sections were relevant was akin to intellectually assaulting Peterlewis. I am of the opinion that this is an inappropriate way to respond to a comment under every circumstance, and encourage the writer to go to take greater care when considering responses to posts he feels are incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semafore (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I back up Peterlewis. Self-plagiarism is a rouge idea which is not without controversy. The idea that people could be accused of academic dishonesty for not acknowledging THEIR OWN AUTHORSHIP OF A THING is absurd. There are reasons a person might not want to acknowledge their previous works. This is plainly an emergent vise of oppression. We do not need authorities for purpose of declaring common sense. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Added: you could also have done a simple Google search. "Self-plagiarism" returns some 30,000 hits. Here's one source. Here's another. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Those articles you refer to are presumably non-peer reviewed: I was after journal papers which have been double checked by others. There is a great deal of dros on the internet, which Wikipedia should not repeat. You are still ignoring the basic point of logic in the definition. Peterlewis (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And you seem to be unable to get past your own preconceived notion about what plagiarism should mean. You'll notice that both the sources I chose for you are from universities, which suggests that they're fairly reliable. Did you bother to read them? Perhaps you should look at them, particularly the second one, before you simply pass them off as not good enough for your standards. Again: feel free to do your own search for peer-reviewed scholarly articles on self-plagiarism, if articles like that even exist. Frankly, I don't think the section is that problematic. It's well-referenced and succinct, although it could use some copy-editing. Your entire issue with it seems to be based on your opinion that self-plagiarism does not, and cannot, exist. Exploding Boy (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with what I think, but what logic dictates. You have simply not addressed the problem suggested by the definition from Webster. And you have provided no examples, like the article itself. I looked at those pages but they don't give examples either and ignore the logic. Self-plagiarism is a non-existent concept by your own definition. Peterlewis (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be getting nowhere here because of your apparently being hung up on a certain, narrow definition of plagiarism, much like people who reject the notion of "homophobia" on the basis that it should mean "fear of the same." Your view (or what you refer to as "what logic dictates") appears to be that it is impossible to steal from oneself. I have tried to explain that reusing one's own previously written material without providing a citation is considered plagiarism, and why. I have given you a Google hit count and links. I really don't know what else you want, or why you're being so hostile. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice that ORI does not recognise "self-plagiarism" (http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/newsletters/vol15_no4.pdf) and that the issue seems to me to be redundant. The term itself is self-contradictory. Peterlewis (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Good news Peterlewis: Stephanie Bird not only agrees with you, she went to the trouble of submitting a (brief) article to the Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics. Now this article represents BOTH points of view. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of ORI, and your own opinions have no bearing on article content. Please see WP:POV. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you reread that yourself, because it also applies to you. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the comments above in this section are very old and this section should probably be archived. Not going anywhere. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The office of research integrity certainly does recognise self-plagiarism: [[1]] --Dannyno (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Another extremist-laden NGO, no doubt. Self-plagiarism is an oxymoron. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion board. We're building an encyclopedia. Your personal opinions are irrelevant. --Dannyno (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The self-plagiarism section is far too long. I suggest that if we really want such a long section then it should be moved to its own article, leaving a much briefer paragraph or two here. I'm also going to correct some of the unsourced and POV content. --Dannyno (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Office of Research Integrity, which I assume is an American invention. Nor have I heard of "self-plagiarism", which I suspect is not heard of anywhere else in the world, and I cannot see why a student who "resubmits the same essay for credit in two different courses" does not deserve praise for her ingenuity rather than condemnation because she is insufficiently politically correct in some way. Deipnosophista (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I second Dannyno. Peterlewis's argument is entirely opinionated and irrelevant. Hiretsuna de~yuo (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Norms of fair use and the flawed concept of self-plagiarism

Added section on "Norms of fair use and the flawed concept of self-plagiarism" with scholarly references in response to comments above. Suggestions? Dr. Perfessor (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Time permitting... there are some typos "Samuelson also says “Although is", and some NPOV to factor out in several places, e.g., "discussion of self-plagiarism is the most cogent and well-reasoned treatment". The footnoting needs some work to avoid duplication, and the introduction of Pamela Samuelson in an overly-long footnote is unnecessary. It's also a rather long chunk to use with basically one source (I'd be inclined to balance it out with varying viewpoints). Tedickey (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your suggestions by correcting the typos I could find, and shortening the footnote on Samuelson. The footnote introducing Samuelson is necessary to establish her credentials to speak with some authority in this area. I trust you don't reject the notion of "relevant expertise?" I don't understand your comment on NPOV. The two widely acknowledged authorities in this area are Samuelson and Hexham, both of whom are cited in the article. If you wish to survey the literature for others, by all means do so. I've already done that. Moreover, the examples given strongly support the overall argument. Please read the section in context, in relation to the sections around it. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Also removed a couple of extra footnotes to Samuelson article. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Someone reverted my edits and said See talk, but there's nothing on talk about it.

Yes, there was a peer-reviewed journal used as a ref... but it was a journal about MEDICAL MATTERS, not about word origins. That's like trying to cite a dentist on a topic about archeology.

Another ref was just to some online site of no known reliability.

Please see WP:RS before trying to use nonsense like that as sources.

Also, your idea of a notable person for the external link is pretty odd. Clearly does not meet WP:EL rules. I don't know what possible justification was used to revert these rather obvious edits per Wikipedia policies. I won't speculate, but it seems very odd. DreamGuy (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I just archived this page recently, removing all threads prior to July 2008. So it's possible that when they said "see talk", they may have been referring to something that's now in one of the archives. Not sure though. --Elonka 23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "see Talk." I said "take it to Talk." As in "you really need to justify - and seek consensus - to remove valid cited information." --ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, let's discuss the three sources you removed without any discussion:

1. Online Etymology Dictionary: I'm not at all sure why this would not be considered a valid and useful reference.

2. ‘Plagarism’ in Archives of Surgery 2004;139:1022-1024: Article from a peer-reviewed journal. I'm afraid it's incredibly arrogant and narrow-minded for a random Wikipedia editor to remove this article as a citation because he or she thinks that the article doesn't fit the topic of the journal in which it was published. It's on-topic for this article and published in a peer-reviewed journal so the bar is pretty damn high to unilaterally declare it an "unreliable source."

3. The third source is pretty clearly a poor source (a listserv posting) and I don't object to removing it.

And let's discuss the Schneier link. First, Bruce Schneier himself is clearly notable and notable for being much more than just a cryptographer. Second, the link itself is interesting and relevant as it discusses not only a particular instance of plagiarism but more general points related to plagiarism and academia. WP:EL clearly states that we should include links that are "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews" and this link clearly qualifies as such.

Now stop accusing me of acting oddly and propagating "nonsense" and justify your actions. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Terms such as "arrogant" and "narrow-minded" are uncivil. For best results here, please try to keep discussions focused strictly on the article, rather than other editors. Thanks, --Elonka 06:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my words and await further discussion from editors interested in discussing this article and actions of editors editing this article. In addition, I would appreciate if you could either participate in the content-related discussion that is brewing or at least administer your warnings and commentary in an even-handed manner (or, at a bare minimum, on my own Talk page to keep this one from being cluttered with off-topic discussion). --ElKevbo (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A medical journal simply is not a reliable source on plagiarism. Period. If you've read WP:RS that should jump right out at you. Expertise in one topic (as that author has in surgical topics) doesn't transfer over to all topics. And a cryptographer is not notable for having any thoughts on plagiarism that is worth linking to in an encyclopedia. Obviously and undeniably. We don't have random thoughts on various topics by people with no background in that topic, as it's not meaningful or relevant. Generally it's more often outright damaging, because our readers may be confused into thinking the person is a credible expert on the topic instead of just the opinion of a lay person.

You need sources and links that follow Wikipedia standards. It's as simple as that. DreamGuy (talk)

Timae attributed the term plagiarism to Empedocles (circa 490-430BC). At that time the Greek work plagios, which denotes obliquity, already had the sense of being “morally crooked, practicing double-talk.”

Liddel, Scott R. (1968). A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1056, 1410.

I agree that the Online Etymology Dictionary is not a particularly credible source, being a .com with about as much reliability as somebody's blog. The medical journal is an odd choice, only 2.5 pages long, with 35 references (some of them dictionaries...), but it does have some interesting examples of early medical plagiarism towards the end. Other than that, it is not a particularly sophisticated treatment of plagiarism, and its brief mention of self-plagiarism is contra experts cited in the WP article. Hopefully Liddel will assist you in resolving this difficulty. It was in the medical journal article and I checked it. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that your interpretation of RS is incorrect and narrow-sighted but I'm not going to continue to argue as I have no strong interest in this article other than removing vandalism. Since you have such a strong interest in this topic, I'm going to delist this from my Watchlist and you can take over. Have fun! --ElKevbo (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why a medical journal is not a reliable source. You're not providing any evidence to support that claim. I've read WP:RS carefully, many times, and I would like you to cite the exact language in WP:RS that supports your claim.

Medical journals are edited by medical editors. Medical editors have expertise in editing. If an editor doesn't have expertise relevant to plagiarism, who does? Why should lexicographers have more expertise than editors?

Plagiarism questions come up regularly in medical journals, and the stakes are higher than some disciplines, so medical editors do have to develop expertise in journalism.

I think an important reason for including the Archives of Surgery article http://archsurg.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/139/9/1022.pdf in the Wikipedia article is that it defines plagiarism as unreferenced data that belongs to somebody else. The definitions I've always seen was that plagiarism was using somebody else's work and claiming it as your own. When material is attributed, you're not claiming it as your own. --Nbauman (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that this page is missing citations is ironic because plagiarism is all about not citing your sources and this page is technically plagiarised as having information stolen and then not cited. Whoever did that should get a high five. But that's just my two cents on the matter. Hiretsuna de~yuo (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of self-plagiarism edits

Hi all - I made some changes to the section on self-plagiarism recently; the main purpose of this was to more clearly distinguish between the legal issues of self-plagiarism and the ethical issues. The legal issues are only at issue when a legal transfer of copyright has taken place. The concept of "fair use" in United States copyright law is a very specific legal term that should be clearly distinguished from the idea of "acceptable reuse" in codes of ethics, which is governed not by law but by professional standards that vary by discipline. The mismatched term "fair reuse" is simply misleading and should be avoided. Please feel free to contest these edits if you think I've misunderstood something here. Dcoetzee 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncyclopædia?

The article Plagiarism has been mercilessly plagiarised by Uncyclopædia, copying it word for word. Isn't that ironic? Look here if you don't believe me. Zhelⁱel 05:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not GFDL compliant, and there's considerable argument on the Uncyclopedia talk page over how funny it is. :-P I'm inclined to let them sort it out. Dcoetzee 08:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Split

Self-plagiarism is too controversial to leave in an article as non-controversial as plagiarism. A real ethicist -- that is, one who isn't a crank -- would take issue with the notion as such. Self-plagiarism fails the "common sense" test, that is plain. Copyright violations are not plagiarism, but something else.

I've no doubt that the self-plagiarism awareness crusaders are quite belligerent in their own right, and that kind of belligerence needs a place far away from an article as serious as this one.

In leu of the split, I'm putting in a neutrality tag. It is plain there is no criticism of the self-plagiarism idea, yet there should be. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced (and no, I've not encountered any "real ethicists" in the context of Wikpedia, so that comment is off-topic). Tedickey (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I added in a criticizing source. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's "For Free"

Plagiary is a serious crime, not only because it's robbing the true author of her rightful revenue, but because copyists are often severely harassing, especially those in entertainment, which involves the internet, as well as mainstream magazines, advertising, and the like . Hollywood has the terrible habit of blackballing, running people out of town, and in general wishing ill will on its targets. This can be especially hard on creative individuals out of work, trying to make money on their writing as a last resort. As these frequently live "on the dole," thereby getting accused of "cheating" unemployment insurers by being secretly "employed," copyists feel they've the RIGHT to steal "back." However, they are in reality denying the author of a valid employment opportunity; it is not technically a job YET until it is sustained, gainful activity. Unfortunately, most fledgling writers are unable to publish. When they do manage to successfuly complete something, they can't keep up with publishers demands for sequels. That the copyist is more experienced does not make them necessarily a better vehicle, either, as plagiarized material tends to be inferior to the original, characteristically rung dry in the identity erasing process. After it's gone over thoroughly with a thesaurus to disguise wording, for instance, meanings may be too loose and inaccurate. On the other hand, good writing--or even having a story recorded in writing, for that matter--is not a prerequisite for plagiary; indigent, functionally illiterate people have been severely hurt after being in the press when their story was considered suitable for entertainment. For amateurs with the best intentions to be completely ruined socially and financially by these greedy opportunists is sacrilege. -Joe Stevens 75.208.36.232 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

More on self-plagiarism

I have made some large changes to the self-plagiarism section. I have kept the key references to material disputing the phrase itself, and those which define it more clearly. I have reorganised the section, and removed material which fell foul of WP:NPOV, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:OR, WP:N and probably lots of other guidelines too.--Dannyno (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What are the consequences of self-plagiarism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.129.125 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL :-) --Dannyno (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-plagiarism does exist. The objection that it is a contradictio in terminis stems from the incorrect view that plagiarism is a kind of copyright infringement. Since copyright infringement is (formally incorrect) associated with theft, it seems illogical that one can steal from himself. Actually plagiarism deceives the reader (+viewer etc.) which is unlawful in a different relation. Rbakels (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits re: Martin Luther King, Jr.

Someone reverted my material about the plagiarism that was found in Martin Luther King's doctoral dissertation. I had included a link to the article on him, to demonstrate that a finding of plagiarism does not always result in sanctions. What could be the explanation for that? I suggested that plagiarism might be acceptable if the person guilty of it is held in high regard by academics. Is there any other explanation? Given the fact that some academics think plagiarism is possible even if footnotes are included, I think a section of this article should be devoted to the apparent double standard, inconsistent definitions, and inconsistent enforcement that is often found on this subject among (the typically liberal left wing) academics who are most concerned about this subject.John Paul Parks (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it or even notice the issue until this note, but I can think of several good explanations. First, there's no sourcing in the material you placed in this article. Even if it is sourced in other Wikipedia articles, each article needs verification of its own. Second, you seem to be concluding that King went unpunished because he is held in high academic regard. This would need separate reliable sourcing beyond sourcing that the plagiarism existed; without such sourcing, this would seem to be original research. Who says the reason it went unpunished was his high regard as a scholar? One might question whether it went "unpunished" because the author had been dead for over a decade before the problem was publicized (according to Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues) or because reviewers feared a political backlash in criticizing a much loved public figure. Who says it went unpunished? What constitutes proper "punishment" in a case of plagiarism committed by a dead man? According to the source used in that linked article, a note attached to the dissertation acknowledges the "improprieties".[2] Is that punishment? Is there evidence that different punishments have been issued to dead scholars who are not as highly regarded? Finally, is there evidence that the practice of overlooking plagiarism is widespread enough to merit a general mention in the article on plagiarism that "On the other hand, clear instances of plagiarism may go unpunished if the wrongdoer is held in sufficiently high regard by academics."? Without such evidence, I fear this may be undue weight on a single specific situation. For instance, in 1996 a man was charged with threatening violence against a reporter he said had plagiarized from him.([3], [4], [5].) I don't know it that's common enough to include it in an article suggesting that plagiarists may be subject to threats of physical abuse. :) While it might be appropriate on an article on an incident itself, for the main topic it's good to stay general. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

misuse of quotes

The quote here attributed to Wilson Mizner is probably not original. Tedickey (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of originality, it's sourced (wikiquote confirms), so it looks fine to me (except for the whole example farm issue that you noted). VernoWhitney (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As it's written, it implies that it was original, particularly in the sense that it's used to belabor a point Tedickey (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Art

This section appears to be WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not. The rest of the article is only about pagiarism in academia and jurnalism, which is a marginal aspect. Most of the literature about plagiarism is about the arts.--Sum (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What would help would be not merely examples to support your presentation, but also some references to where the general topic of art-as-plagiarism is presented by reasonably well-known sources TEDickey (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs more references. Still, apart from that section, the article has no coverage not only of "art-as-plagiarism", but of any issues of plagiarism in works of art. Without that section it would seem that plagiarism is an issue only in academia and journalism.--Sum (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After further research I think most of the material here should be summarized and moved to a specific article on Academic plagiarism.--Sum (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. There's not enough content here to require splitting, and a glance at Google books suggests that this article is currently focused on the primary usage of the term. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusion between plagiarism and copyright infringement

Though the legal aspects section does state "Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement," earlier in that section it says "Only if the copying from the "plagiarized" is substantial, it may be brought up as a lawsuit on copyright infringement." While this is true, it has nothing to do with plagiarism. That is, it's just as accurate to state "Only if the copying is substantial, it may be brought up as a lawsuit on copyright infringement." Whether or not plagiarism took place has no bearing on whether there is grounds for a copyright lawsuit, so I think that reference should be removed. Similarly, at the top of the article: "[Plagiarism] may be a case for civil law if it so substantial to constitute copyright infringement." Again, this has nothing to do with how substantial the *plagiarism* is. Any objection to removing or rewording these statements? Nasch (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

None from me; they can give all the credit in the world and still face a lawsuit on copyright infringement. You can see where that information was added here. Formerly, the true distinction between the two was featured in the lead. (I watch this for obvious vandalism, but otherwise haven't much involved myself in the evolution. It seems to be a bit of a mess at the moment.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nasch, removal of references is most of the times a bad idea. Instead try to reword the senteces to more closely reflect what the references say.--Sum (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the statements in question is sourced:

• It may be a case for civil law if it so substantial to constitute copyright infringement.
• Only if the copying from the "plagiarized" is substantial, it may be brought up as a lawsuit on copyright infringement.

Their removal will not remove references. I think Nasch is using another definition of "reference." (Perhaps the first given here.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that is exactly what I meant. I'll try to remember not to use the word "reference" other than in the "citation" sense. Nasch (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

stealing credit

What about plagiarism in a wider sense as in stealing credit from other people ?--Penbat (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There's probably a different term for that. TEDickey (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for replying to a 4-year old post, but that's what plagiarism is, in a sense, as you can't actually "steal" content per se by copying. Shrewmania (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Source Problem

Source 16 loads to a page that needs a username and password to access, which is impossible to access unless you already have it. Should this be removed since it can't be accessed? Leobold1 (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's an equally authoritative free source which supports the same material then yes, otherwise no. We don't remove citations just because they are difficult to access for some editors. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible to get a copy of the source through Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.--Sum (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde -"I wish I'd said that"

The story mentioned under 'wit' about Oscar Wilde's comment to Whistler ,"I wish I'd said that" seems very succinct and a lesson in etiquette. Maybe worth entering in article. Read about it here,wit. 220.101.66.30 (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC) More fully explained under 'James McNeill Whistler' entry. 220.101.66.30 (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the opposing viewpoint is potentially biased

I was surprised reading this article that not a single mention of the (verifiable and notable) opinion held by some in intellectual and legal circles that plagiarism does not exist, should not be punished and is a forwarding of the wrongful idea that one can own anything immaterial. I think given that it's been written about in Salon and the New York Times wrote about that viewpoint being a "problem" in modern schools that it deserves mention. The fact there is some debate going on as to what constitutes plagiarism and indeed if such a thing exists ought to be mentioned in an encyclopedic treatment of the topic in my opinion 65.29.47.55 (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you know those sources feel free go ahead and add them to the article, or you can simply post the sources here and someone else can add them and their viewpoint to the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's funny. I got the opposite impression. The article as a whole sounds to me like a defense of plagiarism. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've found passing mentions, but nothing I could include as a reliable source of the anarchist view of intellectual property. Maybe my google-fu fails me but lacking RS anything I could add would not be verifiable. I'm glad I took the time to look but it seems that the article's balance is more proper than it seemed on its face. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy the Masters

The opening lines of the article need removing, as they've obviously been written by an economist/anthropologist/sociologist or equivalent idiot. Copying the masters during the 18th century did not mean forging their work...merely to use the style. Samuel Johnson gives us an insight into C18 point of view on plagiarism: "This work is both good and original, however, the bits that are good are not original." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.180.55 (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed section

This edit introduced a few paragraphs of text that simply didn't fit, including dumping in references into the body of the article. However, the content might be able to be worked in. 82.71.186.221 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Contentious claims

The article makes various contentious claims to the effect that artists saw no problem with plagiarism until the 18th century, or even that they still accept it today, and that the value placed on originality is comparatively recent. These claims are not really borne out by the references: for example, it is clear from reference 3 that artists prior to the 18th century did object to others 'stealing' their works. The article seems to be confusing two different things: close copying of a particular existing work (which is plagiarism, especially if the source is not acknowledged), and working in an existing style. The latter has always been generally accepted, though since the 18th century a higher value has been placed on artists (like Beethoven or Picasso) who make notable innovations in style itself. Of course direct copying still occurs, but no-one nowadays find it acceptable.86.135.184.54 (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I just tried editing out some of the sillier claims, but the article automatically reverted, on the grounds that my edits were suspected of 'vandalism'. It seems that anyone can fill Wiki with spurious material, but it cannot then easily be removed without triggering an automatic revert! Obviously I am not going to waste my time on further attempts to edit. I will just repeat my point that moral objections to plagiarsim do NOT start in the 18th century: one can find many examples going back to the ancient world, when for example Vitruvius "assailed would-be authors who would 'steal' the writings of others in order to pass them off as their own, and recommended that they 'should even be prosecuted as criminals' " (Adrian Johns, 'Piracy', 2009, page19).86.174.113.104 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, with your edit I'm afraid you both put your IP and a date stamp in the article and removed other content ("Plagiarism is not a crime but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offence."). See [6]. Too, your edit is to the lead, which is a summary of the rest of the article. Deleting information from the lead does not remove it from the article, it merely removes it from the summary.

But beyond that, we would not remove sourced information. Wikipedia is here as a tertiary source; we serve as compendium of what reliable sources say about subjects. The proper thing to do when sources disagree is to note the disagreement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have better things to do with my time. But one of the (many) problems I have with the article as it stands is that if you click through to the sources, they often do not support the claims in the article itself. For example, the article cites source no. 8 to support the claim that before the 18th century writers were encouraged to copy the masters 'as closely as possible'. But if you consult source 8, the very first thing is a quote from Petrarch (14th century) saying "He who imitates must have a care that what he writes be similar, not identical . . . and that the similarity should not be of the kind that obtains between a portrait and a sitter, where the artist earns the more praise the greater the likeness, but rather of the kind that obtains between a son and his father . . . we (too) should take care that when one thing is like, many should be unlike, and that what is like should be hidden so as to be grasped only by the mind's silent enquiry, intelligible rather than describable. We should therefore make use of another man's inner quality and tone, but avoid his words. For the one kind of similarity is hidden and the other protrudes; the one creates poets, the other apes". Petrarch evidently had a subtler and deeper understanding of the creative process than the author(s) of the article.86.174.113.104 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That may be true. I'm sorry that you don't feel like helping to address it. I myself watch it for vandalism, but otherwise have not contributed to it, beyond offering suggestions at the talk page. I am far more interested in intellectual property laws than plagiarism, per se. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

References

Plagiarism in Scientific and Technical Communication

Science and Technical Writing: A Manual of Style, Routledge 2001 devotes Chapter 8, pp. 194-220 to the ethical, moral, and practical means for avoiding plagiarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcundelan (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Great! Can it be used as a source to improve the article? Rivertorch (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup template

With this edit by User:Yaksar, a cleanup template was added to the whole article, without giving any rationale or explanation. Please be more specific with section and inline templates and leave comments in the talk page.--Sum (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Ideia

Lets say you publish an academic paper containing and ideia u had. Then after publication it turns out that some unkwon and unread author published the same ideia in a unkown journal. Is that plagiarism or independent creation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It would not. People often have ideas someone else has had, that's why there is peer review. ps It being published in an "unread journal" doesn't make any difference. QuentinUK (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Derrida

Would it be possible to make Derrida's quotation clearer, because he didn't publish only one book/article in 2001... Romaningarden (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There's only one 2001 item cited in the references. That's unambiguous TEDickey (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

They have an almost word-for-word copy of this article. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

LoL. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Plagiarism --Sum (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Definition from free online dictionaries

I'd like a definition of "plagiarism" from an online source. There are so many dictionaries, that it's hard to find the one you're quoting from to verify the quotation, even from a library.

Here are two online definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work, as by not crediting the author:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

In general, it's better to use an online WP:RS. Does anybody have a reason for not replacing the current sources with online sources? Otherwise, I'd like to change it. --Nbauman (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Issue or Non Issue?

The section on "self-plagiarism" notes that it is neither ethically nor legally wrong. It then drops the term plagiarism (because as the section itself self-notes, it is not plagiarism) in favor of "recycling". It appears to be no more than a single individual's attempt to create an issue where there is none. This is non-NPOV and original research in spades. As it stands, this section should be removed if it cannot be repaired to describe the current state of affairs of an existing phenomenon.

When someone attributes material to you that you did not write or intentionally misquotes an author, would that be a form of plagiarism?Stmullin (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous number of citations

One sentence on this article has 6 citations. And the sentence is not even terribly important with regard to modern day plagiarism.

I realize that it would be fairly embarrassing to be caught plagiarizing while updating a plagiarism article, but are six different citations for the same sentence actually necessary? --Carrot Lord (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel like some editors are doing this on purpose. There is another sentence with 7 citations, and also an unusually large number of "citation needed"s. Is this some sort of recursive article joke? Jokes should belong on Uncyclopedia. We probably do not need that many "citation needed"s, and certainly not 6 or 7 citations per sentence. --Carrot Lord (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dictionaries

For the past users who put in "dictionary" definitions into this article for some reason, please do not attempt this. Only Wiktionary is allowed to have word definitions. If you need to define a word that nobody understands, point it to Wiktionary or a different online reference. Do not use a large chunk of the page for definitions because that is completely unencyclopedic. --Carrot Lord (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually if memory serves the lead sentence or two of an article are supposed to be a concise definition. However, you're correct that WP:WINAD and I wish more articles would observe that. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What's with the image?

Like in a newspaper, I would think the upper right corner of an article would be the place where the highest standards of relevance would apply. In this article, the image I see in the upper right is confusing! I gather the first paragraph of the suspect work in the image is supposed to point out a really obvious fabrication, apparently as a foil to point out that plagiarism is something else (as illustrated in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs). However, for those like me who don't know the recent history of HTML, the fabrication isn't really obvious. I suppose the indications there are to help us grasp that, but the whole thing ends up being too confusing to really illustrate the point being made. (And is confusion of plagiarism with fabrication so widespread that a negative example of fabrication should be the first thing the reader sees?)

I do commend the emphasis placed on clarifying that changing a few words is still plagiarism. But the present image just doesn't work to clarify anything other than that point. If consensus agrees, let's remove it. Regards, PhilipR (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

agree - the image is not a direct representation or extract from knowledgeable/authoritative discussion, but rather is artwork from an editor which does not aid the reader TEDickey (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I also saw that image and thought it didn't do a good job of illustrating what plagiarism is. The text on the right does take the structure of the text on the left, and uses some of the same ideas. However, I would probably assume the text on the right was a joke, or a parody of the text on the left. I would not expect the text on the right to have been presented in a serious context. Even if you are supposed to assume the text on the right is serious for the sake of example, the way the text on the right changes a lot of facts and has a different primary message (i.e. that HTML7 is awesome, as opposed to that HTML7 is ridiculous-sounding) convolutes the issue. I don't think it would be at all clear to someone completely unfamiliar with the concept of plagiarism what makes the text on the right be considered plagiarism of the text on the left, and they might get the wrong idea entirely (i.e. they might think it was the changing of facts that constitutes plagiarism). Calathan (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Removed! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Researcher's solution to self-plagiarism issue

In the Background section of each research paper, I note that the current paper builds on my/our previous work in the area and then cite all my own relevant previous work, along with citations of others' key work in the area. This avoids self-plagiarism, establishes earlier dates for key ideas if disputes arise, and permits readers who are not scholars to move on with the meat of the paper without wading through hundreds of citations.

I suggest that you provide a definition of self-plagiarism, and provide a link to further discussion. Right now, the self-plagiarism section overwhelms the much more important plagiarism section. HollyforWiki (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

January 2013 proposal to split off 'self-plagiarism'

There was a template ( {{Split section|date=January 2013}} ) to split off the self-plagiarism section as a separate article with a link to this talk page for a discussion, but I couldn't find such a discussion from January. Since this is now September I removed the proposal from the article unless we get significant discussion. (I place my position below.)

I oppose separating the self-plagiarism section. It is a specific form of plagiarism (which makes a lot more sense now that I've read that section.) It should have a redirect at that name pointing to the section in this article (the current state). I don't see any pressing need to separate it so will continue to oppose until I'm shown one. RJFJR (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

peer review and "self-plagiarism"

The main article has the text: 'One of the functions of the process of peer review in academic writing is to prevent this type of "recycling"'. I generally disagree with this comment, but I could be wrong depending on the implied meaning of the word 'functions' in this context. If the text is supposed to mean that peer review is a mechanism that can plausibly catch self-plagiarism, then I agree with the text. However, in my experience, peer review is unlikely to actually catch this (although some readers may notice after publication). I suggest that the text be replaced with 'It is possible that the process of peer review in academic writing can prevent this type of "recycling"' -- an added benefit here is that no citation is required for such a statement, hedged as it is. Personally, I'd just cut the text, but I thought that I would suggest a replacement as an alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1110:606D:65B7:B43C:DF0B:3C5 (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Turnitin

Is it possible to add turnitin to "see also"? -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as the See Also list already includes Plagiarism detection which in turn has Comparison of anti-plagiarism software which lists some commercial products including Turnitin. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Famous Examples and Controversies

It may be helpful to have a separate section on famous cases such as Martin Luther King, Joe Biden, Alex Haley or Maya Angelou. There are real repercussions to engaging in plagiarism of which people should be made aware. Alex Haley was forced to acknowledge his plagiarism and pay restitution by court order. That would be one good example. Also, Boston University could revoke the PhD of Martin Luther King if they wished. This would serve as a warning to students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.162.4 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

POV on Self plagiarism

What we currently have predominantly argues that it's not a problem. A large majority of researchers think it is. This is misrepresented. Galant Khan (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Amerocentrism

"Although plagiarism in some contexts is considered theft or stealing, the concept does not exist in a legal sense. "Plagiarism" is not mentioned in any current statute, either criminal or civil." Really? Nowhere in the whole world? Also, "Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different concepts, and false claims of authorship may constitute plagiarism regardless of whether the material is protected by copyright." needs references. In some jurisdictions (especially in continental European law), authors' moral rights - incl. the right to have their name on their work - are analienable and legally protected without any expiration dates. So, although the phrase "protected by copyright" is usually understood as only concerning the monetary aspects, protection from plagiarism by the means of copyright law is eternal. The effective legal protection from copyright is regulated very differently in different jurisdictions, and as Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", not "The Free American Encyclopedia", the existence of different jurisdictions should be taken into account in the articles. --82.131.40.104 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

diploma mills (sic)

Soapboxing and the like are never an "improvement". TEDickey (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Canadian study in lede

The recent edit doesn't belong in the lede as it is cited, since it expresses an opinion not addressed in depth within the remainder of the topic. Perhaps it would work as a side-comment within the academic section. TEDickey (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for not posting here first but I outright removed the material. It looks like an overly enthusiastic new editor is adding material to many different articles that all cite the same author. It may be simple self promotion or just a misunderstanding of how things work here but in either case it's not acceptable. If someone else believes this material is still useful in this article then please feel free to revert my edit or add the material somewhere else in the article! ElKevbo (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Actually, the "new" editor name looks familiar (perhaps a new variation on an existing one) TEDickey (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverse Plagiarism

While editing another article, Daniel Ladinsky, I came across some references to the idea of "reverse plagiarism" and found that while there are various definitions of such on the internet (urban dictionary) the concept did not seem to be represented here. It seems to "fit" plagiarism in a sense but is also significantly different, so I included it in the "Other context" section instead of the definition of plagiarism itself. The definition of "Reverse Plagiarism" is... the reverse of plagiarism.. since it isn't in wide use there aren't a significant number of references, but it seems a serious enough offense to be included as a form of plagiarism in the same nature.

Since it is as much a concept/idea that naturally follows from the definition of plagiarism it seems at least worthy of inclusion on those merits even if not in wide spread use as a term. However, I find that the reference to the incident as well as the nature of the definition seems to be mutually reinforcing enough to more than justify it as well. If there is another area that would be better suited to include the idea, fraud? perhaps? then I would be fine adding it there, but it seems best to include it in the Plagiarism article for the reasons I've mentioned.

I welcome any discussion here of course. 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Please cite some reliable sources that explicitly define and discuss this phrase. ElKevbo (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the phrase is self evident, I referenced sources of the event and the incident so I believe the event speaks for itself that predicated this. I'm also not sure what the issue is with attaching the word "reverse" to "plagiarism" using the already accepted definition of plagiarism. Unless you can determine why it's required for a "source" to use a simple phrase that seems perfectly functional in the English language - applying an adjective to another word - I see no reason to require an additional source for that.

Just to point out, it's added to an "In Other Contexts" of plagiarism, so it's obviously different than typical plagiarism, but it seems to be an exact parallel/reverse of standard plagiarism. Oddly enough, if Hafiz had put his name on the work of Ladinsky (which is essentially what has happened), it would actually be normal "plagiarism". The difference being the actor forcing the unsuspecting party into an "Untraditional" act of plagiarism is in fact the person creating the original work. I'll admit it's a rare and strange situation but it seems to fit under plagiarism better than anything else.

Either way, I'm fine with changing the "term" used. I personally don't think there needs to be a direct use of the term "Reverse Plagiarism" for "reverse plagiarism" as it exists to be discussed, so at the very least I think the incident should be reported on the plagiarism page until there is a better location for incidents of this nature or another term for the activity (although the plagiarism page seems like the appropriate location for incidents of this nature). If there is another term that captures the idea and referenced incident better I'm all for using that.

2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Until you have reliable sources that are clearly on-topic, this is original research. ElKevbo (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe the sources are on topic, there is a clear incident of someone attributing original work to another author - which essentially fits within the definition of plagiarism, albeit in an untraditional form. At least recognizing the confusion of this occurrence seems relevant on the page explaining plagiarism so if it should be in another section in the definition then we should at least clarify why this incident "is not" plagiarism so that we can understand better what plagiarism "is". I don't think placing the issue here qualifies as research, merely reporting of what has occurred and recognizing that it is a form of plagiarism, or not, but either way it clearly needs to be addressed whether the "act" of plagiarism is the same thing as the "result" of plagiarism.

2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources you've cited literally don't even use the word "plagiarism." Find better sources and stop wasting our time. ElKevbo (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The point of the sources are to reference the occurrence of misattribution of original work to another author. It hardly seems a waste of time to discuss the nature of the content of plagiarism as well as the act of plagiarism itself and if/why these are different. As I mentioned before, the "result" of this act would be plagiarism had the misattributed author been the one self attributing the original work so it seems highly relevant to discuss this situation. 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to formally apologize to ElKevbo. I apologize for misappropriating your name and assigning my original work to you. I was wrong to do such a thing and I will not do it again. I thought, perhaps, it would add to the discussion of "Reverse Plagiarism". I will emphasize that there was no intent to "game" any discussion, but merely to bring to light the activity itself and I assumed that only ElKevbo would notice so I considered it justifiable in the context. But as I see it now, another user could have been confused and thought ElKevbo agreed with me (which in some sense does bring to light the dangers of reverse plagiarism) 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The Poynter source does indeed use this phrase and it's clearly a reliable source. However, it's probably not sufficient to have one weak source if you want to include information in an encyclopedia article.

You've also added an accusation of "reverse plagiarism" to this article focused on a specific individual. Do not add that information to this or any other article until you have high quality reliable sources that explicitly support the accusation. ElKevbo (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I'm definitely biased against Ladinsky, so I will recuse myself from including his particular act of reverse plagiarism. Although I do think that part of the reason it has not been recognized for what it is is due to the lack of information on it, so hopefully rounding out the wikipedia article with the term and practice will make more people familiar with it. I found a few more additional sources that discuss it in academic contexts, so it looks like it is the generally accepted term for the activity. I added those to the definition section below. 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

-- For the reference of the use of the term here is the relevant section: " But to the reader of the text, it looks like I said things I didn’t say and wrote things I didn’t write. I’ve got no name for that: mis-plagiarism? reverse plagiarism? not-tribution?"

I'll add that the referenced individual has published works on Plagiarism, so we may call them a Plagiarism scholar, so the individual in question would be a reliable source for information on terms and use of plagiarism, or their lack.

2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there are a few academic publications that also use the term. I'll update the reference in the page. 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)