How old does a thread have to be to be considered a zombie?
(My memory is poor, but not so poor I don’t recall reading this thread in March.)
I only wish I had written it myself…
These lazy-assed kids and their lazy-assed copying from a magic box. It’s all so boring. When I was a teen-ager, I didn’t copy stuff – I fabricated quotations, sources, facts, etc., from whole cloth! Now, that was cheating, my friends!
Crap, I started reading the OP and thought “wait. . . I’ve read that paper the kid’s plagiarizing before. . . why have I read a paper on. . . oh.”
I’m too old for this discussion, I think. I read Thomas Mallon’s book, and all about the Kearns fiasco, and others, but all that means is a head full of stuff some people think about ethics and plagiarism and why one proscribes the other and…
When I was younger, I thought I knew the (non-scientific) rules, which were (as I remember them):
(1) if a fact is available from multiple readily available sources, or can be considered common knowledge, and is stated in your own words, it need not be independently footnoted, though all the sources you consulted should be mentioned in a bibliography;
(2) otherwise, any mention of a fact, whether restated in your own words or not, should be cited by author, publication (full info), page#, and date, specifically enough to enable any competent person to locate the source material;
(3) any opinion or interpretation of fact not originating within the paper-writer’s brain and completely new must be attributed to at least one source for such opinion or interpretation, whether rephrased and/or obvious or not;
(4) any material (such as private letters, interviews, and such) not available to other researchers should either not be used or be turned over and turned into consultable sources (i.e., the letter or tape given to the university library with an affidavit attesting to the source).
Do I misremember, or have the rules changed?
I was too early for any internet source problems, thank goodness–Lexus/Nexus was limited even for Law students–but have the rules changed all that much? Are they being taught, or merely some nebulous warning to “be good?”
It’s not obvious when or how much to change the wording or create a citation, if you’re being taught ethics rather than the much more tangible rules of citing sources.
I don’t care what’s in the student handbook – if students read it, you could put the entire curriculum in it and dispense with professors and deans and dorms. This is an area that could be mathmatically precise but is being handled as philosophy. Why?
Oh jeez, the poor kid was listing facts. They came from the same source, which he fessed up to in the first sentence! The only thing missing was the “(Brown 45)” cite. Big deal. You see what happens when teachers make kids try to do the plagiarism-dance? They take good paragraphs, like from the quoted source, and reword it into a crappy paragraph like the student’s version. How exactly is a student supposed to cut, trim, and edit that source w/o making it worse? He just forgot to tell you which source- that’s not plagiarism because he’s obviously not trying to take credit for the research.
I never get anything like that. I get the “papers” that were entirely copied and pasted from one or more websites, with no quotes, no cites, no acknowledgment, nothing.
I tell them from the very beginning not to do this. Notes, handouts, quizzes, warnings, examples, etc. They do it anyway.
Mmm… Probably somewhere about this old. Closed without prejudice; anyone may feel free to start a new one on the subject.