I don’t know if you’ve seen the apology I posted but this isn’t how I would characterize it. I was asked to apologize for the confusion caused by my posting the parody without attribution and not mentioning that I had received it by email. I did so in post #163.
In other words, I apologized for specific actions or inactions of my own, and not that they were taken the wrong way by someone else.
Two things strike me:
One: The information you posted seems to more of a style guide for publication of the American Psychological Association than an unequivocal statement regarding legal or dictionary definition of plagiarism. Perhaps the word is used elsewhere in the manual but I didn’t see it addressed in the snippets you quoted so I can’t speak to it.
Two: There are tons of publications out there full of arcane rules and standards that pertain to a particular profession that are not incumbent upon everyone else, if for no other reason than that people not in that profession are going to be completely unaware of them. So even if the manual you quote deems my unattributed copying and pasting of an email of anonymous content to be plagiaristic by its standards, that doesn’t mean it is also in the larger context of public discussion on a message board.
Look, Lamia, with respect you are simply not arguing factually. You have an axe to grind by your own admission because the subject is near and dear to you as part of your profession. You are attributing to the word plagiarism standards that do not exist in it’s dictionary and legal sense. Plagiarism requires dishonest intent. You cannot logicially argue that my hastily and unthinkingly copying and pasting information presented without attribution in a political email forwarding from a relative meets that standard.
It’s a very common occurance around here for people to get mad when I don’t come around to their point of view. This to me is not only egotistic on their part but arrogant as well. It presumes that the point of view that they have is unquestionably correct when almost invariably it is subjective and not definitive. I think the way I do and behave the way I do because I believe that what I think and do is correct. In my view it would therefore be dishonest to admit plagiarism because that is not what I did according to intent or to any unbiased and objective definition of the word.
kaylasdad, que? (I won’t be responding for a while as I have to leave shortly. But if you want to 'splain that I’ll answer it when I come back later.)
Yes. This is exactly what is being suggested. It wouldn’t have taken much effort at all, and you could have avoided this ridiculous six page shitstorm. You knew someone wrote it, right? And you chose to post it in its entirety on a message board? And that this message board has rules about posting other people’s work? The rules are very clear; even when you say, “This is an Elvis Costello song,” you can’t post the lyrics of the whole song in Cafe Society, so why would it be OK to post someone else’s work, in its entirety, without even the author’s name, in the Pit?
So yes, if you wanted to do this right, you should have “run around looking for attribution before posting it.” It would have taken you mere seconds on Google. I tried it myself, putting the first line into the search engine. The first hit is Snopes, which provides your attribution. Considering the backlash, wouldn’t it have been worth it?
If three people tell you you’re drunk, go lie down, of course.
ETA: It’s a Russian proverb. I learned it here on the Dope nearly ten years ago.
ETA: again: And for SA’s benefit, the first rule of holes is that when you’re in one, you stop digging.
What a friggen self-serving asshole. If every organization did not express its own definition of “plagiarism,” then they would necessarily be plagiarizing someone else’s definition. Most organizations choose not to, so that plagiarizing shit-weasels like you can’t claim “this place says this, and that place uses a different adjective, so who knows what plagiarism is, anyway, no one can judge me, bbbyyy…” and simply reference some authority such as the APA or MLA, which are all in agreement on the basic terms, but use their own wording. One thing they all agree on, for example, is that the intent of the plagiarist is immaterial, since only the plagiarist himself (that’s you, in this case) can state definitively his own intent, and since he can be relied upon to give the most benign version of that intent, there’s no reason anyone should waste a moment even to read the self-serving claims of the plagiarist (again, that would be YOU here).
“I didn’t intend to deceive anyone” is bullshit, and as such is properly disregarded. What is material is the effect of the act, which in this case clearly did deceive several honest readers of your OP. You are therefore guilty of committing plagiarism. You are further a low, dishonest snake for continuing to defend your despicable actions after being informed of the general opinion on this matter, and for casting aspersions on the characters of your accusers, which is far from uncommon among plagiarists (which would be YOU, yet again)–muddying the waters of who is being accused of doing what is a very frequent tack, especially among those who no other viable defense. The more you yammer on, the more nails you put into your own coffin.
Certainly. It would have been worth it even without the backlash. IT SIMPLY DIDN’T OCCUR TO ME TO DO SO! How many times do I have to say that ? I have posted many things around here where I voluntarily attributed the source, even when they are innocuous, if for no other reason than someone might be curious and want to find out more themselves. I have no problem with attribution and never have. But now that the horse is out of the barn and the misunderstanding has occurred, what do you want from me. I will most certainly check for authorship if I post anything anonymous again, I have apologized, and I’ve explained myself over and over to all comers regardless of how many times I’d already explained the same point. I’m at a loss to come up with anything else that should be done, so how’s about your take on what needs to be done to rectify the situation short of a dishonest and disingenuous admission of plagiarism?
You have to acknowledge that you did something. No weaseling about responsibility like saying you had a deprived childhood or that other people have done the same thing.
You have to acknowledge what you did was wrong. No weaseling about how it’s no big deal and it really shouldn’t be a crime and there are lots of other things that are worse.
You have to apologize for doing it. No weaseling about how you’re sorry you got caught or you’re sorry other people made a big deal out of it.
That was exactly the post that prompted my response.
Shit, I am going to get drawn into this drama by having to go back and desconstruct your apology for you?
Here is a tip on apologies: Dale Carnegie pretty much got it right: get it out there fast, and unconditionally, with no frills, and people are generally forgiving. Do the opposite and get the opposite from people.
I don’t know enough about you to know why people refer to your love of all things 1950s, but if it helps, I hear his books were popular in the even by then.
[quote]
Two things strike me:
One: The information you posted seems to more of a style guide for publication of the American Psychological Association than an unequivocal statement regarding legal or dictionary definition of plagiarism.
<snip>
That wasn’t me. Related to plagiarism is MIS-attributing sources, either intentionally or not.
Here is a good chance to practice your new apology skills. Rememeber: quick, without elaboration, without weaseling, and it will come off sincere.
OK, go for it!
I am sure you were taught about plagiarism way back when in grade school or middle school perhaps.
Just like everyone else.
Instead of trying to redefine well understood terms to meet your needs, why not say - “wow, that was a long time ago that I learned about plpagiarism, I goofed up unintentionally, thanks for the refresher course and I beg your forgiveness?” That’s a GOOD apology!
I disagree. He wouldn’t even need to do that much. A simple “chech out this email I got” would have sufficed. The issue is not so much giving credit to the author but giving the impression that he wrote it. I happen to think it is a stupid piece of “work” but I am used to that from SA. But the really stupid part is trying to pass it off as his own stupid “work”.
Well, don’t ask questions like, “What did you expect me to do, run around looking for an attribution?” At this late point in the thread, the fact that you still wonder if people expected this of you is a bit puzzling. YES, yes, a thousand times YES. That is what you should have done, and by now you should know it. It’s not an unreasonable expectation for people posting others’ work. As a teacher, I expect it from my 7th graders, so yes, I’d say poople could reasonably expect it of you too.
I don’t see why an admission of plagiarism would be dishonest or disingenuous. As you pointed out, you would not have to admit that you did it intentionally, since you did not. You did it thoughtlessly. That’s all you’d have to say. “I apologize for thoughtlessly plagiarizing someone else’s work and posting it here without attribution. I learned my lesson and it will not happen again.” And that would be the end of that.
This is precisely what I mean by conditional, and hence, insincere apologies.
You don’t know me, and you don’t know who the readers are. You only know who responded, not who is lurking.
You plagiarized for all of your readers, whether they agree with you or not on other matters, whether they like you or not, whether you like them or not.
The offense was to all without qualification, and so must be the apology to be effective.
I look forward to your trying again. Based on what seems to be a history of you ending up in these situations alluded to by others and not refuted to by you, I think this will be a good skill for you (and frankly anyone and everyone) to master.
SA, I’ll point out what I’m sure you already know. Nobody’s saying you have to conduct any research into the original authorship of something you copy and post. We don’t have that high a standard. What we expect is that you acknowledge the source you got it from. If you receive an email and post its contents, then acknowledge that what you’re posting came from an email. If it turns out the author of the email plagiarized the work, nobody will hold you responsible for that.
I honestly don’t think he was trying to pass it off as his own work. I believe him when he says he really didn’t think anyone would believe it was his own work. His intention was not to deceive anyone. I agree that simply saying, “I got this in an e-mail” would have sufficed, though an attribution would better. If he had done the basic Google search, he’d see what an old chestnut it was, and maybe would have thought the better of posting it. Regardless, he wouldn’t have gotten the drubbing he got here for what I truly think was an act of thoughtlessness and not malice.
Then why not “quote tags”? If, as you say, you included the line about “seeing the future” under the wholly misguided assumption that it would signal the non-originality, why not quote tags? Even without any attribution, it would have clearly signaled that you were not intending to be taken as the source. You had to cut and paste anyway, why not just include quote tags?
Of all the means at your disposal to signal, why did you pick the least effective?
And this:
Huh? What? Now, admittedly, this isn’t as obvious a bold-faced lie as your previous gem of mendacity, how its all about laziness when laziness isn’t even mentioned. It takes a second rank place. Its like taking a parody of the Defense of Marriage Act and claiming its all about taking away our guns.
Which is why you included the line about “seeing the future”? Which, according to you, is a clear signal that you did not intend to claim authorship. Apparently, it did cross your mind. A wonder it made it all the way across.
Now I’m going to psychoanalyze him a little. Starving Artist thinks that he’s a voice crying out in the wilderness here, and that the majority of us are arrayed against him because we are wrongheaded liberals who do not like hearing the truth of his conservative righteousness. This victim mentality has led him to view any criticism, even the objective type about plagiarism (which is totally non-partisan), as a partisan attack. He doesn’t realize that while maybe he has garnered some ill will because he posts mean-spirited and vitriolic attacks on a huge group of people, that’s really not what this is about. What it’s about is that he screwed up and did something thoughtless, and should just admit he made a mistake. The fact that he’s having so much trouble with this goes to his larger attitude, which is that he’s the righteous man being victimized for his beliefs, and not a man who is spouting arrant, unattributed nonsense being criticized for the nonsense, not the beliefs behind them.
It’s the way you express yourself, SA, not what you are expressing, that people object to, here and in general. There’s a lesson here if you’re willing to learn it. Admitting you were wrong in this instance does not demean you or your point of view.