Talk:Plagiarism

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)

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)

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 Ironical? 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)

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)

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)