differentiates those activities, which are real and therefore have consequences, from school tasks, which are largely “unreal” and therefore, outside the realm of ethical consideration” (Wiebe, 29)
The internet has inarguably played a role in the ease of plagiarism. The Internet allows users to cheat more effectively and discreetly than in times prior, and as Rebecca Moore Howard wrote in The Chronicle Review, “if you are a professor in the United States and you have a pulse, you have heard about the problem of Internet plagiarism." Wiebe provides a definition of Plagiarism as defined by the website "Plagiarism Stoppers," which calls the practice "a rapidly growing problem in many venues today" which "needs to be addressed by all who are in the education field by teaching the observance of proper citation compliance AND by making sure students know that stealing somebody's work is wrong." Wiebe references the work of Moore Howard, who believes that there are three main forms of plagiarism- cheating, non-attribution, and patchwork.
Despite being likely very against plagiarism, Howard does note that it is impossible to create something in this day and age that is completely original. Everything is inspired by something else, that is the very nature and the vast importance of citing one's sources in every academic context. While one's work is more than likely a combination of different sources mixed in with (hopefully) one's own perspective, it is vital that sources are cited so each person's work may be respected and maintained. Wiebe quotes more agains saying "in academic writing, at least, there is no simple "originality," no such work that simply jumps from the student's mind to the page in some unmediated way."
Wiebe goes onto cite Brian Martin, who offers a second perspective into the specific types of plagiarism. Theres the most obvious plagiarism, which occurs when one steals the exact words of another person without using quotation marks or citing him or her in any context. Wiebe says that this would be called "word for word plagiarism." Then there is the slightly less gruesome "paraphrasing plagiarism," which occurs when one references something, but never really looks anything up or gives any real credit to the source they're using. Martin's third, and "more elusive" type of plagiarism is when an author uses the structure of an argument without providing credit. Finally, there's "plagiarism of authorship" which Wiebe defines as "the blunt case of putting one's name to someone else's work." This is perhaps the most severe and gross form of plagiarism.
Of course, everything is grey in this world and there are in fact some forms of acceptable plagiarism in the real world. These are what Martin refers to as "institutionalized plagiarisms." Instances where a politician, movie star, business executive, etc. may have a subordinate write a speech, which he or she delivers and never pays authorship credit to the
actual composer. This kind of plagiarism occurs it what is in essence, a hierarchal of plagiaristic definition. The higher up one is, the less likely it is to be condemned, or even acknowledged at all of plagiarizing something. Martin provides some examples to this hierarchy. "When a student steals another students work, that's plagiarism. When an academic borrows another teacher's materials to produce a class lecture without citation, that's scholarship. When a supervisor takes credit for an underling's work, that's business." There certainly is a blurred acceptance of what does and doesn't qualify as plagiarism. Wiebe yet again references Martin, whose taxonomy argues that where one resides in a power structure holds just as much overall relevance as whether or not the person actually plagiarized something.
Sources:
Wiebe, Russel. "Plagiarism and Promiscuity, Authors and Plagiarism." (n.d.): 29-47. Web.
actual composer. This kind of plagiarism occurs it what is in essence, a hierarchal of plagiaristic definition. The higher up one is, the less likely it is to be condemned, or even acknowledged at all of plagiarizing something. Martin provides some examples to this hierarchy. "When a student steals another students work, that's plagiarism. When an academic borrows another teacher's materials to produce a class lecture without citation, that's scholarship. When a supervisor takes credit for an underling's work, that's business." There certainly is a blurred acceptance of what does and doesn't qualify as plagiarism. Wiebe yet again references Martin, whose taxonomy argues that where one resides in a power structure holds just as much overall relevance as whether or not the person actually plagiarized something.
Sources:
Wiebe, Russel. "Plagiarism and Promiscuity, Authors and Plagiarism." (n.d.): 29-47. Web.
All of these things are true within the context of Wiebe. However, I think a case could be made for classifying summarizing a piece directly in a new work, even with citations,as a (very abstract) kind of plagiarism. I say this because I believe there is an implication that, with producing a new piece of writing, there is an implicit expectation that a new claim be made, or else why bother reading the new piece if no claims are made?
ReplyDeleteAn exception to this rule would be text-based summaries of pieces that are based in different mediums: recaps of movies, shows, music, even shorter summaries of time-intensive pieces of text, such as novels. A summary of this type would be incapable of accurately reflecting every nuance in the original and is thus making a claim about what overarching themes, characters, relationships, events, etc, are significant.
However, in summarizing shorter pieces- without also summarizing another piece and therefore automatically setting up a compare/contrast situation, even without explicitly comparing or contrasting- particularly in pieces that are within a certain ratio of length to the original (although I’m not certain what the specifics of that ratio would be), there is the question of “why am I reading this?” Although in all likelihood there are practical reasons for the reader to be reading, the “why” really means, what does this new piece add to the discourse surrounding the topic of the original piece? It can feel a bit like plagiarism to read a piece that opens as a summary, expecting to discover a claim, and finish without one.
Jonah Lehrer's plagiarism is another separate example that we can examine, particularly his plagiarism of his own work. How might Wiebe classify this type of plagiarism? On one hand, Lehrer is working in the real world. He's rehashing ideas from previous work, which affects the readers. But on the other, does the fact that it's his own work make it any more acceptable? Does this form of plagiarism fit into the same category as plagiarizing someone else's work? Though Lehrer is plagiarizing himself, his work not only affects himself. This type of plagiarism is still blatantly ignoring consequences.
ReplyDeleteWhile students may believe schoolwork is not the "real world" and therefore doesn't hold consequences for anyone beyond themselves, they should still feel a moral obligation to not plagiarize. Consequences shouldn't be the only determinant of whether to plagiarize or not. Copying, paraphrasing without crediting, and other forms of plagiarism are violations of another person's work and efforts. The gravity of the ethical violations should be sufficient reason to not plagiarize.