Just once I'd like to see blame for one of our societal ills put in the proper place these days. Everyone has to finger point at everyone else while ignoring their own part in the mess. This incident, though, is just another bad example of blame put everywhere but where it belongs. In this case, the AP reports about a University of Texas at San Antonio incident of plagiarism of which Clemson University's Daniel Wueste ridiculously blames on the Internet.
At the UofT, a student committee was convened to write an honor code to discourage cheating and plagiarizing, a rising problem in our Universities nation wide. Unfortunately, the student committee's results lifted sections of Brigham Young University's honor code that the UofT students found on-line. Yes, the code to discourage cheating and plagiarism was, in part, plagiarized.
AP gives us the details:
Student Akshay Thusu said that when he took over the project a month ago he inherited a draft by earlier project participants, including a group of students who attended a conference five years ago put on by The Center for Academic Integrity at Clemson.
Materials from the conference, which are used by many universities, were probably the main source of UTSA's proposed code, Thusu said. That's why parts of the Texas draft match word-for-word the online version of Brigham Young University's code.
BYU credited the Center for Academic Integrity, but the San Antonio draft doesn't.
But, what or who is at fault for this "oversight"? The AP asked Daniel Wueste, director of the Rutland Institute for Ethics at Clemson University why he thought this was becoming so prevalent?
"That's the consequence of the Internet and the availability of things. It doesn't feel like what would be in a book. You Google it and here it comes."
I'm sorry, what? It's Google's fault, it's the Internet's fault?
No, Director Wueste, it is not the fault of the Internet or Google. The fault should be squarely placed on our educational system. The problem is that our schools do not teach our children to properly cite their sources. Our schooling has become lazy and filled with "self esteem" and feels-goodism instead of rigorous training.
And, worse still, this story got out because this rough draft without citations was put forward as a reviewable copy. What this means is that there was no oversight by any professors or teachers during the drafting process. If there had been, the teacher in question would have been guiding the work of this student committee and such an error should have been caught long before there was any chance that the error could have come to the AP's attention.
So, Mr. Wueste, while the Internet has certainly made it easy (maybe even too easy) to find information that can be "cut and pasted," the Internet is not the reason that plagiarism and cheating has become so woefully prevalent in our schools. For that we must look to society and the lack of attention of our educators. Google may be responsible for a lot of things, not all of them good. But Google didn't cause these kids to plagiarize their honor code.
Sadly, we cannot even seem to be able to expect the a director for ethics at one of our top Universities to place blame where it belongs.
(Photo credit: Erickson Press, "Ripped from the headlines" series)
Mike Nizza over at The New York Times blog The Lede picked up on this one. So, kudos to Mike.
Comments Policy
WTH, "SO?" Syrius
March 31, 2008 - 09:58 ET by SyriusWTH,
"SO?"
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Whoops,
March 31, 2008 - 09:59 ET by SyriusWTH,
That was a Cheney comment I plagiarized...
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Well to be fair, he is from a liberal college....
March 31, 2008 - 10:00 ET by c5thenHe's been well indoctrinated that a failure like this is no one individual's fault, it must be placed on a non-entity so as to avoid any hurt feelings.
While the internet in general and search engines like google specifically, make this type of cheating and plagerism easy, it is not their fault that the perpitrators do not know enough or are too lazy to cite their sources. The primary failure hee is with the student(s) in that they were too lazy, or thought they could "get away" with the plagerism. If you want to search for underlying secondary causes, then that is indeed the failure of the education system and society in general for not teaching and demanding personal responsibility.
The internet is no more to blame than copy machines, or carbon paper or pens and pencils. Like all man-made implements and tools, they can be used for good or for evil.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Maybe we...
March 31, 2008 - 10:04 ET by Warner Todd HustonMaybe we should blame Guttenberg! After all, if he hadn't popularized that darn printing press thingie... why plagiarism wouldn't be so easy!
LOL
March 31, 2008 - 10:12 ET by c5thenHow about Geese! Without those nice quills, the ink-pen would have been a lot harder to produce!
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
STINKIN' GEESE... CHEATERS!
March 31, 2008 - 10:17 ET by Warner Todd HustonSTINKIN' GEESE... CHEATERS!
In other news....
March 31, 2008 - 10:00 ET by landsharkumbrellas cause rainy days.
I had a poli sci prof who told us once that if your term paper doesn't have at least one citation per paragraph, you're probably using someone else's work as your own - intentionally or otherwise. That may be a bit overstated but it was a pretty good lesson.
UTSA RIP
March 31, 2008 - 10:21 ET by River CityWhat a shame they aren't teaching a credible ethics course laced with personal responsibility. I attended UTSA for 2 1/2 years and completed ROTC there before transferring to Colorado. What a shame. They have been in the news for other unfavorable things lately and I am saddened. It was a decent school in the early 80s. Henry Cisneros taught there when I was a student. He shared an office with one of my professors. We all know what happened to him when he got around Bill Clinton.
"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton, 6-28-04 San Francisco
There is no original thought.
March 31, 2008 - 10:26 ET by SyriusWTH,
I recently lent my Season 4 of the Simpsons to my Pastor to see one of
my favorite episodes where Homer stops going to church and starts his
own religion because God came to him in a dream and told him that it
was okay. My wife was surprised that I lent it out to him because the
Simpsons are so liberal at times, but I stood by my thought that they
are the most culturally and theologically relevant television show on
t.v. She asked if I ever tell people that I got this
thought from professors and instructors, and to this I reply no. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as original thought, or at least
it’s getting harder and harder to be original. I found most people
I had talked to on campus were just barfing up random facts they learned
in class and it reminds me a lot of that scene in "Good Will Hunting"
when he calls the guy out in the bar with the facts that he’s spewing
out. I’ve even read books where a theologian said the same thing
another theologian said, almost to the word, and never cited the other.
(PJ vs Fut)
Maybe it’s getting to the point where we wait and see who is going
to say something that is going to blow people out of the water so much
that we declare him the Anti-Christ and then later on in history people
will look at him as a true theologian; somebody like Martin Luther,
John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, Karl Barth or Paul Tillich. I wonder if
we’ll even recognize somebody as a theologian if they shake the tree of
Christianity too much. It will be interesting to see.
Syrius
Instead of having 'answers' on a math
test, they should just call them 'impressions' and it you got a
different 'impression' so what, can't we all be brothers?
You certainly aren't alone
March 31, 2008 - 10:40 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou certainly aren't alone in thinking that the Simpsons is often much deeper than it might at first appear. Yes they attack the shibboleths of the right, but they do the same to the left and more often than you might expect.
Pssst....
March 31, 2008 - 10:47 ET by SyriusWTH,
Just having some fun with "plagiarizing" thoughts and comments from others. The comments are not my own. Cut & paste, cut & paste...
My Bad!
Syrius
And, unlike the MSM's news-propaganda operations
March 31, 2008 - 10:47 ET by sarcasmoI've found they've been damn-close to TOTALLY fair to large-L Libertarians by doing unthinkable things like (gasp!) mentioning them. And I include the Ayn Rand day care center episode in this statement. Hell, LP HQ was next door to Ned's Leftorium, which is probably right where it belongs in Springfield. If the news media rose to the standards of that cartoon, I'd bitch a lot less about antilibertarian bias.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Wasn't the Ayn Rand daycare
March 31, 2008 - 10:50 ET by JasonCWasn't the Ayn Rand daycare center kind of a put-down?
My favorite part of that gag was the way Hitchcock's The Birds was parodied when Homer goes in to find Lisa.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Well, kinda, but...
March 31, 2008 - 11:05 ET by sarcasmoLibertarians are not a monolith, so we/they're already split about Rand. She was a genius, but like many smart folks she could also be a jerk. For me, even though she influenced my life, I don't consider making fun of Rand to be making fun of all libertarians. Besides, even if it is, smart parody is better than a mindless/biased blackout any day of the week. The homage to "The Great Escape" when Maggie recovers the pacifiers is classic Simpsons.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
The Simpsons
March 31, 2008 - 11:06 ET by candanceI watched that episode a long time ago and I thought it was pretty stupid. So was the episode where they tried to use Christmas to lure Lisa away from Buddhism.
Maybe that's just me. When I was a teenager I thought the Simpsons was edgy and different - now I just find it annoying.
Martin Luther : Man of the Millenium
March 31, 2008 - 11:27 ET by thoridflyHistory hinges on the theological, philosophical, and political refutations of men like Martin Luther. His stand ignited the Reformation and brought an end to the Dark Ages.
The posting of his 95 theses against the corruptions of the Roman Catholic Church on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg, Germany on October 31st, 1517 was a turning point in the history of Europe and, I dare say, mankind. Without him there would have been no Protestant movement, no Britain, and no United States.
He was the greatest man of God between the time of the Apostle Paul and E.W. Bullinger.
"A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops." - Henry Adams
Plagiarize This : LIBERALS SUCK
March 31, 2008 - 10:30 ET by thoridflyPlagiarism is taking someone else's words and then claiming them as your own. Re-stating what someone else has said or written is not plagiarism.
pla-gia-rize v.
to use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
pla-gia-rism (legal definition) n.
taking the writings or literary concepts (a plot, characters, words) of another and selling and/or publishing them as one's own product. Quotes which are brief, or are acknowledged as quotes, do not constitute plagiarism.
"Plagiarism" is just another baseless charge liberals will sometimes throw out there to silence opinions and people they don't like.
"I am a member of no organized political party ... I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers
I'll bite...
March 31, 2008 - 10:42 ET by SyriusT-fly,
LIBERALS SUCK when conservatives are proven wrong.
How's that?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Thorid, Technically
March 31, 2008 - 10:44 ET by LeonThorid,
Technically anytime you paraphrase or rephrase another's intellectual concept, you need to cite the original source.
Otherwise, it's dishonest.
So, re-stating can be plagiarism if you don't give adequate sourcing.
It is not. Leon said if
March 31, 2008 - 10:53 ET by Dan The Man 2It is not.
Leon said if you take what some idiot said then you must cite teh source.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
It is so...
March 31, 2008 - 11:02 ET by Syrius...true. If you take what Dan the Man 2 said you must cite "teh" source.
Ta-Da!
Syrius
wow Syrius!
March 31, 2008 - 11:08 ET by candancePoking fun at a typing error on a message board! You're right, there are no orginial ideas!
Dan...
March 31, 2008 - 11:16 ET by SyriusDan,
It wasn't only the typing error...it's also about the irony.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Dan?
March 31, 2008 - 11:19 ET by candanceDan who? Do I look like Dan the Man?
Did I write Dan?
March 31, 2008 - 11:23 ET by SyriusCandance,
My apologies to Dan! I should have realized he got it. As for you...hmmmm...you did see the irony?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
rofl Syrius
March 31, 2008 - 11:38 ET by candanceI doubt Dan's absence is a reflection of his agreeing with you.
You find it ironic that Dan made a remark about quoting idiots with an obvious spelling mistake for you to quote...I get it. But it still isn't all that funny.
syrius and candance
March 31, 2008 - 11:33 ET by mandrakeuhmm guys, the word "teh" is a legitimate internet word. It is used to demonstrate that one is 'cool'. And on this site, noone is cooler than Dan the Man2...
Humor is lost when explained.
March 31, 2008 - 11:49 ET by SyriusM-drake,
This thread is on plagiarism and the internets. I chose not to cite Dan and used his own words. I only referenced his mispelling as to point to his quote as a form of irony and as a citation to his quote. Now go back and start from the beginning and possibly you'll see the humor (probably not) of the thread and its comments. Up until now I've been cutting & pasting others' quotes from other sites on the internets as a form of humor to this thread on plagiarism...
:sighing:
Syrius
Before you criticize someone, you should
walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a
mile away and you have their shoes.
This "teh" business...
March 31, 2008 - 12:04 ET by Warner Todd HustonI have to say, the "teh" joke is so inside the Internets that few people "get" it.
The word "the" is often mistyped as "teh" because the fingers can get crosswise so easily creating that manual malapropism.
So, the "in" joke is to say "teh" all the time. Unfortunately, most people just assume you can't spell because the joke is not too obvious!
So, I never use it. MY inside joke is "ahve" instead of "have"! But then THAT is my OWN manual malapropism.
What does this have to do
March 31, 2008 - 10:45 ET by JasonCWhat does this have to do with liberalism?
I do so love how quickly this was pawned off on some sort of liberal
mentality about spreading aroud blame and responsibility so as to
de-emphasize the individual.
And this particular incident happened at a state school in Texas? Yeah, real liberal bastion down there.
As to the assumption that universities simply do not teach proper
citation or research: patently untrue. Many universities do exactly
that. Most liberal arts schools make two semesters of College Writing
a mandatory pre-req, regardless of the student's major. Each semester
involves a structured research project, lessons on appropriately
integrating sources, and punitive measures for plagiarism (automatic
failure of the course is generally the most lenient consequence). Of course, my experience has only to do with schools in the "ultra-liberal" northeast.
And indeed, students do over-rely on the internet. That is simply the way that our culture has led students born in the late 80s. For them, doing research online is not an extension of traditional library/archival research, it is simply a fact of academic life.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
I can only assume it's
March 31, 2008 - 11:01 ET by balboaI can only assume it's because the AP places blame on the Internet, not on the students. And since the AP is a liberal hellhole, this trait of misplacing blame is a further extension of their hideous liberal influence.
The connection is clear to me.
March 31, 2008 - 11:07 ET by landsharkThe connection to liberalism is in the moral relativism and narcissism that is inherent to the left - "ideals" that are passed on to kids through the public education system.
The younger generations have been taught that results don't matter as much as efforts and/or feelings. Teachers have done away with red pens, kids aren't taught how to reason and form arguments, and there are almost no consequences for failing to meet diminishing education standards (teachers and student). It's better to give Johnny a diploma than it is to make him feel bad because he can't read.
Given this sort of dubious moral compass and lack of ethical code, it's unsurprising that young adults do not see the appropriation of someone else's ideas and work as something that is inherently wrong.
I went to university in my late 20's and was amazed that many of my classmates had difficulties with the basics of writing papers; creating an outline, sentence structure, grammar, ...spelling. It was an eye-opener.
"The connection to
March 31, 2008 - 11:18 ET by JoeBob"The connection to liberalism is in the moral relativism and narcissism that is inherent to the left - "ideals" that are passed on to kids through the public education system."
Cue JasonC: "No liberals that I know are like that"
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
No, we get it. All liberals
March 31, 2008 - 11:21 ET by balboaNo, we get it. All liberals are narcissistic and have no morals.
Hey, you're batting 1.000
March 31, 2008 - 11:34 ET by JoeBobHey, you're batting 1.000 today, balb. I didn't think you had it in you.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
I was able to set aside my
March 31, 2008 - 11:42 ET by balboaI was able to set aside my immoral ways just long enough to own up to the immorality and narcissism. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go snort cocaine out of a hooker's belly button, filming myself all along.
Please PM me
March 31, 2008 - 14:30 ET by FastEdwhen you're finished. I'd like to know what type of film you gonna use. ; >)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
That's it exactly
March 31, 2008 - 11:45 ET by landsharkThat's precisely my argument - that all liberals are narcissistic and have no morals. I thought that using the codewords "moral relativism" and pointing out the lack of accountability in the public education system would be enough to disguise my attack on liberals as individuals but, dammit! you saw right through it.
Good on ya.
Of course I know liberals
March 31, 2008 - 15:32 ET by JasonCOf course I know liberals like that. I know conservatives like that too. Neither of which things changes the fact that your big leap from plagiarism issues to "It's symptomatic of liberal indocrtination!" makes you sound ridiculous.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Speaking of big leaps
March 31, 2008 - 19:52 ET by landsharkwhere did I blame this on liberal indoctrination, exactly? If you're going to put quotation marks around words, make sure the words are a quotation.
For the record: I don't happen to know any conservatives who subscribe to moral relativism, and I do happen to know which side of the political spectrum has dominated the public education system for the past 40 or so years.
I'm merely pointing out the generalization that a certain segment of society does not believe in absolutes when it comes to truth, right and wrong, conduct, etc. and that same particular segment of society tends toward a particular political ideaology. It seems obvious that that which is rewarded is repeated; so if there are no consequences for cheating, what would you expect to happen?
If it makes you feel better, I have no particular opinion on the specific case of the so-called honor code being cribbed - again, I was speaking more generally. If you want to argue against that generalization - go right ahead. I'm willing to be wrong but you have to put forth a smarter argument than what you've so far demonstrated the capacity for.
Landshark, Paragraph 1:
March 31, 2008 - 20:20 ET by JasonCLandshark,
Paragraph 1: My comment was directed at JoeBob's various remarks, not yours.
Paragraph 2: (Point 1) Indeed, moral relativism and conservatism are almost mutually exclusive. (Point 2) How do you know this?
Paragraph 3: You're conflating ethics and morals. Issues of plagiarism pertain to the former. For instance, I might write a searing, postmodern defense of morally dubious behavior, but I would still view it as unethical if someone plagiarized that work. The two are different.
Paragraph 4: I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you, not me. And the only argument I've tried to advance thus far is that many universities do, in fact, teach research methods and enforce academic integrity. Warner claims that they do not, and clearly he did not bother to research this point.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
Response 1 - Fair enough
April 1, 2008 - 00:35 ET by landsharkResponse 2: I know who runs public education because of things like this and this. If you seriously think that academia is inherently conservative, I think I have to question your definition of conservative and/or your sanity.
Response 3: If I were conflating morals and ethics I would not have distinguished between the two. The concepts are different but they may also overlap; but that's hardly tantamount to conflating the two. I'll agree with the first half of your example but are you suggesting that plagiarism (i.e. theft) is not immoral as well as unethical? If you are, then I think you've just proven my original point.
Response 4: There is no burden of proof on either of us. I'm simply saying that my argument may well be wrong but we'll never know it if we leave it up to you to shoot holes in it.
I apologize if I derailed
April 1, 2008 - 02:01 ET by JoeBobI apologize if I derailed the thread by yanking your and Bal's chain, Jason. WTH's piece, however, seemed just as indignant wrt the excusing of plagiarism to an inanimate object (the Internet) as with the act itself. I agree with candance and you on the unethical nature of plagiarism. I also agree with landshark that it is immoral as well, since it involves the theft of a person's intellectual property without giving dues owed (and fail to see your point re: ethics and morals being separate. My Webster's lists ethical and moral as synonyms).
My jab was simply at the morally relativistic avoidance of blame described. Since, as you say, moral relativism and conservatism are pretty much mutually exclusive, the differentiation between them must be characterized by a willingness (or not) to "follow the rules" (even I wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim conservative monopoly of morals...often).
Now, for a Venn diagram showing the exclusive nature of relativists(R) and conservatives(C), and also the exclusive nature of liberals(L) and conservatives(C) (and let's pi** sarc off and assume the liberal/conservative population encompasses the entire population), it follows that (R) is a subset of (L), and the shot at you (not!) knowing any relativists.
But, as they say, if you gotta explain it... <sigh>
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
I highly doubt that these
March 31, 2008 - 11:19 ET by balboaI highly doubt that these students went about this saying "Dude, let's just steal someone else's code because it's, like, too much work to write our own?"
Plagiarize This : LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS
March 31, 2008 - 11:47 ET by thoridflyHenry Adams, people.
"As for piracy [plagiarism], I love to be pirated [plagiarized]. It is the greatest compliment an author can have. The wholesale piracy of Democracy was the single real triumph of my life. Anyone may steal [plagiarize] what he likes from me." - Henry Adams
It seems the only jack_ss idiots worried about "plagiarism" are liberal pinheads who want to harass people trying to make a point or trying to get through some pointless, liberal college course.
If some liberal jerkweed professor tries to drop a piano on his students with a bunch of mindless "homework" and "research" then let those students cut and paste the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica.
huh thorid?
March 31, 2008 - 11:59 ET by candanceDude, I'm a freelance writer and I gotta say I totally disagree with you. I don't care who you quote about not minding plagiarism - most of us DO mind it.
Last year I had a friend of mine read the beginning of a novel I had started. Next thing I knew, she wrote a story that was strikingly similar. If she had finished first and beaten me to an editor, I would have looked like the Johnny Come Lately. So I had to ask her to stop.
Writing and composing music is harder than it looks, and it really isn't fair for some lazy bum to click a few buttons and get all the same credit.
Allow me...
March 31, 2008 - 12:00 ET by SyriusT-fly,
LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS when conservatives are proven wrong.
It is impossible to underrate human intelligence - beginning with one's own.
Ta-da.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Plagiarism
March 31, 2008 - 11:53 ET by candanceAfter reading the original article, I'm on the fence about this issue.
First of all, I don't think it's fair to blame the internet. If kids today honestly don't realize that stealing from the internet is stealing, the blame for that falls on the school admins. When I was in school my professors stressed the evils of plagiarism in all forms (including the internet) and left no doubt in our minds. With these kids in college, telling them once or twice isn't good enough; you must create a culture where they can't escape the warnings.
So either the schools are not educating them or someone is making excuses for sloppy research.
I don't see this as an issue of libs versus conservatives. The word liberal doesn't appear in WTH's article. I believe he was just pointing out that the AP allowed Clemson to run intereference with a bogus excuse.
I have been laughing at the
March 31, 2008 - 11:59 ET by Warner Todd HustonI have been laughing at the WTH-blames-liberals line too. I NEVER said the word in my piece as you so intelligently noticed! Thanks for paying attention.
Sorry about that.
March 31, 2008 - 12:31 ET by thoridflyI was venting about an incident that happened to a friend of mine in college ... my general impression of most university professors is that they are liberals ... hence, the "Plagiarize This : LIBERALS SUCK" and the "Plagiarize This : LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS" subject lines.
My post did indeed have
March 31, 2008 - 13:06 ET by JasonCMy post did indeed have more to do with thoridfly's weird and aggressively irrelevant hysterics - we get it TF, you hate academia and plagiarism is justified because professors are idiots anyway - but to be fair, isn't this whole site about liberal bias? So I'm just wondering how liberalism plays into any of this, especially since many posters have already claimed it does.
Who can revolt if man has become a simple conglomerate of organs, a person barely free enough to use a remote control to choose his channel? -J. Kristeva
So you don't blame liberals
March 31, 2008 - 13:41 ET by balboaSo you don't blame liberals for something?
Citations Required?
March 31, 2008 - 12:00 ET by CobraMan"And, worse still, this story got out because this rough draft without citations was put forward as a reviewable copy."
Since when are citations required in a school's Honor Code? How could anyone be accused of plagiarism for not listing citations in a draft of an Honor Code, whether it is in the form of a rough draft or a final draft? This wasn't a term paper.
Granted, it would be nice if the students showed the ability to use original thought by creating their own Honor Code, but to make claims of plagiarism by comparing one school’s code with another is rather foolish. It is quite common to include concepts, ideas, or phrases from other sources while drafting an Honor Code. I've never heard before today that citations need to be listed in order to avoid claims of plagiarism.
sorry Cobra
March 31, 2008 - 12:14 ET by candanceFact is, you are wrong. The Code of Ethics was going to be printed and distributed across the campus with the student advisors given credit for coming up with it.
Those kids at Brigham Young had to spend the time typing up their version and giving proper credit to their inspiration. It is NOT FAIR for kids at another school to copy and paste in five seconds and expect to gain equal praise.
I know a simple school policy might sound tedious but we must teach our kids to follow the same rules all the time.
No need to be sorry
March 31, 2008 - 12:35 ET by CobraManNo need to be sorry.
There comes a time when requirements like these become absurd. I agree that kids need to learn responsibility, but the insistance that no other person, speech, or statement can be quoted, restated, or reused without full disclosure and citation, no matter the situation, is past the point of absurdity.
How many legions of bloggers now are going to pour over every public and private speech, paper, or code in order to find some statement, phrase, or even a single sentence that resembles someone else's work, and use that to demean someone publicly in the name of honesty and integrity? That indignant insistence on full citation and disclosure creates a self-perpetuating complaint system, a continual online bitch and moan about everything someone says and does, in public and in private. Just how much integrity does that show?
And what does free speech mean anyways, if not the ability to say things that are similar, or even exact, to what others have said in the past?
To me, this is just another tempest in a teapot, and to hell with citing the originator of that quote.
woah Cobra!
March 31, 2008 - 12:46 ET by candanceNo one said anything about everyone citing every sentence.
If you'll notice in WTH's narrative, the kids copied entire sections verbatim. It wasn't just their "inspiration" or the origin of their "concept" it was entire paragraphs lifted word for word.
Secondly, this is not an article about someone's blog or a message board. This was an official policy in an academic setting - these students of all people should have known better.
If you read Ann Coulter's new article, then you clicked on Michelle Malkin's site and she posted the exact same article as if she'd written it, that would be plagiarism. And that's on the level of what these students did.
No one is expecting you to cite the origin of every proverb or quote you repeat on here.
And this is not an example of the rules being snowballed - it's been this way already for years with no danger to casual bloggers.
Then why the complaints?
March 31, 2008 - 13:08 ET by CobraManWhy are people even complaining and making charges of plagiarism in this case? This was a rough draft, not a final version of the code. I don’t see the need to include citations in a rough draft of anything I produce, let alone feel the need to make indignant claims of plagiarism when someone else does the same and doesn‘t include citations in their rough draft.
This is proof positive that someone is just trying to make a name for themselves by making value judgments based on an incomplete version of a given paper or statement. What's next, complaints about unfinished thoughts and incomplete statements? Grow up, people!
????
March 31, 2008 - 13:22 ET by candanceEven though this was a rough draft, I'd be willing to bet no citation had even been noticed or paid attention to. If the student advisor had been able to find someone who remembered using a source, this would have never surfaced.
Folks who routinely write rough drafts of important documents will agree that having proper citation from the beginning is essential. I very much doubt WTH wrote a rough draft of this and then said "now I just have to remember where I read this."
The student did the right thing by blowing a whistle before it got printed. This rough draft had gotten passed on for submission, so it wasn't really a true rough draft, which means at some point a teacher had to have read it. If the school had gone on and printed it, the school would have been responsible.
I'm sorry you feel like I'm being immature, but as someone who has worked on such projects myself, I see that someone at the university clearly dropped the ball here. And the fact that WTH picked up on it shows me he understands where I'm coming from.
Faux Indignity
March 31, 2008 - 13:49 ET by CobraManComplaining about an unpublished draft of anything, whether it is a college code of ethics or a J.K. Rawlings book, is analogous to complaining about blueprints that are not used. It is completely without merit and is, therefore, totally unnecessary.
Come on Cobra
March 31, 2008 - 14:11 ET by candanceThere is a big difference between unused and not yet used.
If that unpublished draft is on its way toward being published and no one stops to ask about citations, then yes it's a problem.
What was that student supposed to do? Say nothing until the school printed it and then watch them get embarrassed? Just because it's not published *yet* doesn't mean it's no big deal.
But that's okay. According to you, I can sneak into Ann Coulter's house, read the draft of her upcoming article, beat her to the punch, and call it fair because she hadn't published it yet.
Legal ownership can be established far in advance of a work getting officially published.
Are codes copyright-worthy
March 31, 2008 - 14:23 ET by balboaAre codes copyright-worthy material? If a code is, in the end, to be used for good, why should you care if it's a lot like someone else's?
Harvard's motto is "Veritas." Yale's is "Lux et Veritas." Should Yale be held accountable for "lifting" part of Harvard's motto?
This is a good question.
March 31, 2008 - 14:37 ET by sarcasmoIMO the answers are: "In academia? Maybe, if only to avoid flaps like this. In business? Probably-not."
At least when it comes to user agreement legalese, just about everyone copies bits and pieces of what's already out there & working in the real world. They don't ever tend to give attribution to the writers of the many competitors' user agreements they've lifted from so freely, either. Later competitors with even more blatant cut and paste jobs for their own agreements also provide no attribution, in the real world examples I've seen.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
sarc
March 31, 2008 - 14:44 ET by candanceIf the people in that industry allow it to happen then there's not much the law can do. Judges aren't sitting around looking for examples of plagiarism - the original author or the advisor in charge must make an agressive step to call it out.
And in the real world, nobody bothers
March 31, 2008 - 14:51 ET by sarcasmoBecause nobody's selling their user agreements.
I can see the point from a self-interest perspective, too. When this happens companies are in effect banding together, even though they're competitors, against this nation's hoardes of lawyers by ignoring this stuff.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
right on point
March 31, 2008 - 15:05 ET by candanceIn many industries, authors will let stuff slip to create an environment where everyone can borrow. They are content with the status quo.
And yet, if it works for them it should not apply to everyone. I have friends who make their living by creating works of art and gleaning royalties. If an author wants the right to protect their property they should have the power to do so.
different bal
March 31, 2008 - 14:40 ET by candanceYou're using a tedious extreme to make a point. Harvard doesn't own the word veritas, and furthermore it's impossible to prove plagiarism based on one or two words.
Again we're not talking about one or two words. We're talking about entire paragraphs being copied from the internet with not so much as a scribble to show the source.
And no, just because a thief is using their powers for good doesn't make it okay. If WTH happened to visit HotAir.com, where he saw his very article appear without so much as a hat tip in his direction, I doubt he'd be cool with it being used for good purposes.
Something can be similar to someone else's work without danger. We're talking about cases where it's clear that someone borrowed from another source.
Coding should be no different. Why should a coder work on a program for hours only to watch some slacker down the street pick it up and say "look what I did."
Without plagiarism standards there is no incentive for people to create things if they can't guarantee they'll be compensated for it.
You're using a tedious
March 31, 2008 - 14:53 ET by balboaYou're using a tedious extreme to make a point.
True.
Look, I don't think they should lift the material either, but I consider it more an homage than straight up plagiarism. :-)
well bal
March 31, 2008 - 15:16 ET by candanceNot to sound snooty, but that's the point where most creators will disagree. They work very hard to articulate things and are not often flattered by imitation.
I think the problem here is that most people who don't write tend it to see it as something fun, something you sit down and do in just a few minutes, more like a hobby. They don't really see it as somone's livelihood. If you worked hard to complete a project at your job, whatever that job may be, and someone else came in after the fact to take credit, you would not feel like they wanted to pay homage to you.
I agree absolutely, but I
March 31, 2008 - 15:27 ET by balboaI agree absolutely, but I guess in this case, since it's not like they're making money off the code, someone using parts of it is OK under "fair use".
In the end, yeah, they should attribute it or reword in their own fashion.
Careful Bal
March 31, 2008 - 16:19 ET by RESTLESS 1Rewording someone else's thoughts is plagiarism as well.
why so snarky?
March 31, 2008 - 17:25 ET by candanceYou all are seriously taking this debate too far.
Saying "people shouldn't plagiarize" is not illegal just because WTH said it first. But, citing an AP article about plagiarism at a school in Texas with an interview from Clemson and having entire paragraphs that sound eerily similar to WTH's piece.....now you're on thin ice.
Likewise, anyone can write a story about a woman who gets caught having an affair - but when a woman named "Esther" is forced to wear a certain color shawl because she won't expose her marriage counselor as her lover...suddenly you've borrowed a little too much from The Scarlet Letter.
Any law, when taken to extremes, can end up hurting people. There is no need to do so with this law. It's designed to protect the property of people who create stories, research, music, and programs for a living.
Umm
March 31, 2008 - 22:54 ET by RESTLESS 1Wasn't being snarky. If you take an encyclopedia article, touch it up a bit, reword it if you will, and use it as your own, it is plagiarism. Unlike others here, I have no problem with WTH, and quite frankly, I agreed with you.
sorry restless
March 31, 2008 - 23:50 ET by candanceI got the wrong idea from the way you worded your post.
No problem
April 1, 2008 - 00:09 ET by RESTLESS 1I often have trouble passing the thoughts in my head to my fingers accurately. :)
Candace, you have been
March 31, 2008 - 14:24 ET by