Plagiarism?

Page 2 of 4 (73 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
This post has 72 Replies | 4 Followers

Posts 5232
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 9 2018 6:03 PM

abondservant:
apples and oranges though, one was a reference book, the other was a flip answer given on a game show.

Yes but the resource loosly quoted in the opening sentence and ABD was one of the acknowledged resources sourced in the article‘s Bibliography. 

-Dan

Posts 3937
abondservant | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 9 2018 6:30 PM

Bobby Terhune:

abondservant,

i don’t think Douglas agreed with you on the plagiarism issue. I would consider it at least a stretch in this particular case.



Suspect it matters more what Knobloch thinks than whomever you mean by Douglas.

In any event of the four types it arguably meets the criteria for two, and definitely meets the criteria of one.

Dan Francis:

abondservant:
apples and oranges though, one was a reference book, the other was a flip answer given on a game show.

Yes but the resource loosly quoted in the opening sentence and ABD was one of the acknowledged resources sourced in the article‘s Bibliography. 

-Dan



As you admit, loose or otherwise it DOES quote it. Which DEFINITELY meets the second of four of the criteria. The first third and fourth can be argued. One needs only violate one to be guilty of plagiarism.

Bibliography is "for further reading" and not a list of works consulted or cited. Certainly not according to the standard to which I am held - which presumably is fairly consistent across academia.

The more you argue with me, the more convinced I become Dan.

L2 lvl4, L3 Scholars, L4 Scholars, L5 Platinum,  L6 Collectors. L7 Baptist Portfolio. L8 Baptist Platinum.

Posts 5232
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 9 2018 6:55 PM

abondservant:

The more you argue with me, the more convinced I become Dan.

Glad I could be of some use. I realize that this is a serious problem but the small amount in my non-academic mind seems forgivable.  I like Denise have come across far worse cases. 

-Dan

Posts 3937
abondservant | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 9 2018 9:15 PM

I suppose its up to IVP now. I messaged them earlier. The auto-reply says it could take 2-3 days to get back to me.

L2 lvl4, L3 Scholars, L4 Scholars, L5 Platinum,  L6 Collectors. L7 Baptist Portfolio. L8 Baptist Platinum.

Posts 8
Roger Duke | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 9 2018 9:42 PM

A bit problematic, but too picky to call it plagiarism.  It's not even the majority of a sentence which is taken verbatim.  Also, since this is a definition there are necessarily going to be similarities as there are only so many ways to accurately describe the exact same thing.

Posts 951
Tom Reynolds | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 9 2018 10:14 PM

Roger Duke:

A bit problematic, but too picky to call it plagiarism.  It's not even the majority of a sentence which is taken verbatim.  Also, since this is a definition there are necessarily going to be similarities as there are only so many ways to accurately describe the exact same thing.

If this is the totality of the similarities in the whole article then I would agree. It sounds from what was written above that the rest of this article doesn't have any other such similarities and thus I doubt IVP will be concerned.

Posts 5232
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 9 2018 10:17 PM

It has close enough phrasing and ordering to have been inspired by the originaL It seems unlikely but after hours of research the author may have formulated the sentence believing it was roughly his own creation. I would more likely believe that he liked the phrasing and like myself believed it was not worth footnoting.  Since it’s far from a direct quote I am not sure exactly how to best create the note, and I do know from the past cases where books had to be pulled in at least one case the publisher had demanded fewer footnotes. 

-Dan

Posts 5232
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 9 2018 10:39 PM

abondservant:
Bibliography is "for further reading" and not a list of works consulted or cited.

This quote from Wikipedia is how I have always understood Bibliographies, indeed many less academic works contain both Bibliography and for further reading sections:

Enumerative bibliography

An enumerative bibliography is a systematic list of books and other works such as journal articles. Bibliographies range from "works cited" lists at the end of books and articles, to complete and independent publications.  -Dan 
Posts 2324
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 4:03 AM

It is NOT plagiarism by this definition as it does not quote one full sentence.

abondservant:

The creation of a kinship relationship between two individuals that is recognized as essentially equivalent to one stemming from natural descent. In the ancient Near East, such ties were typically between adoptive parent(s) and a son or daughter, but individuals were adopted into other roles as well.


Adoption is the legal establishment of a kinship relationship between two people that is recognized as being equivalent to one based on physical descent. There are few references to the practice of adoption in the Scriptures, but the concept was employed to explain the nature of God’s relationship to his people and to their king.

abondservant:

Here is my schools statement on Plagiarism (I left off the punishment though as it is already a lengthy quote).

What is plagiarism?
Quoting one or more sentences verbatim without proper citation. This is the most obvious form of plagiarism. In addition, using unattributed direct quotations is a violation of US copyright law. Electronically cutting and pasting is easy to do, so it presents a definite temptation-especially if a deadline for an assignment is looming.

I have told my grandsons to footnote where is uses ideas even if they do not use the words.

Also does changing some of the words count or protect?  

individuals  / people     

essentially / being      

stemming from natural / based on physical 

Posts 27108
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 5:48 AM

David Ames:
Also does changing some of the words count or protect? 

Changing SOME of the words makes the plagiarism WORSE! It is a deliberate misappropriation. 

There are different levels of plagiarism, but it is still the theft of someone's work. I can understand how someone who is working on a writing project could be careless, copy a quote sloppily and end up with something "original." It is still theft. 

When I was a paperboy in my younger days, I delivered the paper to a lady who was running for county commissioner. She went to the grocery store and bought groceries, but somehow she ended up being caught leaving the store with unpaid for frozen fish sticks in her purse. No joke. Her defense was that she was distracted while talking on her cell phone. That may have been true, but she still got into trouble and lost the election. 

To say that the resource where the partial quote came from was listed on the bibliography is to say, "BUT I PAID FOR THE OTHER GROCERIES!!!" 

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 2281
Ronald Quick | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 6:50 AM

I know that after reading a number of resources on a particular topic, I have to double check to make sure that what I write is not something that I have read elsewhere.  It's so easy to think that I have come up with a good way of saying something, only to learn that it I read it 4 resources earlier.

Posts 9913
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 7:16 AM

JT (alabama24):

When I was a paperboy in my younger days, I delivered the paper to a lady who was running for county commissioner. She went to the grocery store and bought groceries, but somehow she ended up being caught leaving the store with unpaid for frozen fish sticks in her purse. No joke. Her defense was that she was distracted while talking on her cell phone. That may have been true, but she still got into trouble and lost the election. 

I bet the guys voted her out, for chatting on a cellphone in the grocery. Any self-respecting lady knows that frozen items condensate, and would destroy everything in your purse (unless prime rib, of course, not fish sticks).


Posts 9913
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 7:20 AM

Ronald Quick:

I know that after reading a number of resources on a particular topic, I have to double check to make sure that what I write is not something that I have read elsewhere.  It's so easy to think that I have come up with a good way of saying something, only to learn that it I read it 4 resources earlier.

That's my theory (completely unsupported) on how the NT came to be .... so many verbal sermons, they lost track of exactly who they were copying ... it just sounded great.


Posts 1356
Rick Ausdahl | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 7:30 AM

Tom Reynolds:

Roger Duke:

A bit problematic, but too picky to call it plagiarism.  It's not even the majority of a sentence which is taken verbatim.  Also, since this is a definition there are necessarily going to be similarities as there are only so many ways to accurately describe the exact same thing.

If this is the totality of the similarities in the whole article then I would agree. It sounds from what was written above that the rest of this article doesn't have any other such similarities and thus I doubt IVP will be concerned.

Just a lay-person here... not an academic, an author, or in ministry, and certainly not an expert on plagiarism.  So my thoughts are just personal thoughts.  But when consulting various secular dictionaries for definitions of non religious terms, I have often found the definitions to be nearly so identical as to feel they were all just parroting a common source.  There was a time when it bothered me a little, but then as noted by a few others in this thread, we're talking about definitions, which by their very nature are often presented in very concise ways.  I would really dread being assigned the task of contributing to resources of this nature knowing that in my definition, every little idea, sentence, and even phrase, had to be original, or at the very least, had to somehow be couched in such a new and original word flow that it stood no chance of being successfully charged with plagiarism.

Based on what I see from the example in question, and even much, much more from what I've seen in secular dictionaries, in order to avoid the charge of plagiarism, the vast majority of entries in any newer dictionary resource could do little more than list each term to be defined, followed by a phrase something like "see such-and-such a resource for the definition".

In short, it seems to me it would be much easier to avoid plagiarism if writing a commentary or monograph and therefore such resources deserve greater scrutiny for plagiarism.  But definitions in dictionaries?  That's got to be a tough assignment!  Glad I don't have to worry about anyone approaching me for the job.  Wink

Posts 3937
abondservant | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 7:58 AM

JT (alabama24):

David Ames:
Also does changing some of the words count or protect? 

Changing SOME of the words makes the plagiarism WORSE! It is a deliberate misappropriation. 

There are different levels of plagiarism, but it is still the theft of someone's work. I can understand how someone who is working on a writing project could be careless, copy a quote sloppily and end up with something "original." It is still theft. 

When I was a paperboy in my younger days, I delivered the paper to a lady who was running for county commissioner. She went to the grocery store and bought groceries, but somehow she ended up being caught leaving the store with unpaid for frozen fish sticks in her purse. No joke. Her defense was that she was distracted while talking on her cell phone. That may have been true, but she still got into trouble and lost the election. 

To say that the resource where the partial quote came from was listed on the bibliography is to say, "BUT I PAID FOR THE OTHER GROCERIES!!!" 



Agreed. Theft is theft. Accidental or otherwise.

It struck me too that he had changed just enough to make it seem grey....

Rick - I too am glad I'm not writing a dictionary. But those that enter into such tasks ought to make SURE they don't copy someone elses definition. I looked at about 20 different dictionaries, and the other 19 authors managed to write significantly different sentences to define the same thing. It is at best laziness, and at worst theft. Either can be considered a form of plagiarism.

Denise - I suppose the argument could be made that the disciples all plagiarized Christ/God. But they weren't writing in the USA in the year 2000+. They didn't have to worry about copyright law being broken, or lawsuits, and they certainly didnt care if their writings made them money. Here again we are talking about two different categories of writing with different purposes. One is a faithful accounting of God's word. The other is a defining of the words man uses to talk about God's word. I'm not sure the two are fully equivalent.

To those who say its just a little theft... I'm reminded of when I was a kid, maybe 4 or 5. My grandmother told me those bulk candy dispensors (the big clear plastic containers that you poured loose candy from into plastic bags) were free samples. They were of course not. But I didn't know that. The next time I was at that grocery store with my mother. I grabbed 4 pieces of candy. Two I ate in the store, and two I put in my pocket. In the car I offered one to my sister. My mom heard me, and when she found out I had taken them without paying for them, she made me march back inside and explain to the store manager what I'd done.

The store manager didn't care. But my mom made me take my next months allowance (almost 2$) in their one week at a time to repay - with interest - the 25cents worth of stolen candy. To this day I don't eat butterscotch. lol

Store manager really didn't care, and seemed annoyed by the whole thing. But the point is even a little adultery is wrong. So is a little porn. So is a little murder (not sure how that would work), so is a little stolen knowledge. Even if you don't realize its stolen in the moment.

Any way. This is probably going to be my last post on the subject till I hear back from IVP. If you guys are interested I'll post their response. Best case scenario they run this guys writing through plagiarism software and/or edit the article with a footnote. Or perhaps have the guy re-write the 10-15 copied words.

I have had HUNDREDS of papers submitted through plagiarism software. It sounds scarier than it is.




L2 lvl4, L3 Scholars, L4 Scholars, L5 Platinum,  L6 Collectors. L7 Baptist Portfolio. L8 Baptist Platinum.

Posts 5232
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 8:04 AM

JT (alabama24):

David Ames:
Also does changing some of the words count or protect? 

Changing SOME of the words makes the plagiarism WORSE! It is a deliberate misappropriation. 

There are different levels of plagiarism, but it is still the theft of someone's work. I can understand how someone who is working on a writing project could be careless, copy a quote sloppily and end up with something "original." It is still theft. 

 ........

To say that the resource where the partial quote came from was listed on the bibliography is to say, "BUT I PAID FOR THE OTHER GROCERIES!!!" 

I see what you and  abond are saying, I just perhaps am too jaded having read many times entire paragraphs lifted without attribution in books seeing 2/3 a sentence feels no big deal. I will say if it was intentional it is quite a brazen thing to start your article with another’s words. Fishsticks don’t end up in a purse accidentally. Bottom corner of the cart missed as you unload maybe. Although I know accidents happen one time my husband got home to discovered a bag of bolts from Home Depot in his pocket next week he went back and paid as was right to do but he did steal them however unintentionally it happened. 

-Dan

Posts 1356
Rick Ausdahl | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 8:09 AM

abondservant:

JT (alabama24):

David Ames:
Also does changing some of the words count or protect? 

Changing SOME of the words makes the plagiarism WORSE! It is a deliberate misappropriation. 

There are different levels of plagiarism, but it is still the theft of someone's work. I can understand how someone who is working on a writing project could be careless, copy a quote sloppily and end up with something "original." It is still theft. 

When I was a paperboy in my younger days, I delivered the paper to a lady who was running for county commissioner. She went to the grocery store and bought groceries, but somehow she ended up being caught leaving the store with unpaid for frozen fish sticks in her purse. No joke. Her defense was that she was distracted while talking on her cell phone. That may have been true, but she still got into trouble and lost the election. 

To say that the resource where the partial quote came from was listed on the bibliography is to say, "BUT I PAID FOR THE OTHER GROCERIES!!!" 



Agreed. Theft is theft. Accidental or otherwise.

It struck me too that he had changed just enough to make it seem grey....

Rick - I too am glad I'm not writing a dictionary. But those that enter into such tasks ought to make SURE they don't copy someone elses definition. I looked at about 20 different dictionaries, and the other 19 authors managed to write significantly different sentences to define the same thing. It is at best laziness, and at worst theft. Either can be considered a form of plagiarism.

Denise - I suppose the argument could be made that the disciples all plagiarized Christ/God. But they weren't writing in the USA in the year 2000+. They didn't have to worry about copyright law being broken, or lawsuits, and they certainly didnt care if their writings made them money. Here again we are talking about two different categories of writing with different purposes. One is a faithful accounting of God's word. The other is a defining of the words man uses to talk about God's word. I'm not sure the two are fully equivalent.

To those who say its just a little theft... I'm reminded of when I was a kid, maybe 4 or 5. My grandmother told me those bulk candy dispensors (the big clear plastic containers that you poured loose candy from into plastic bags) were free samples. They were of course not. But I didn't know that. The next time I was at that grocery store with my mother. I grabbed 4 pieces of candy. Two I ate in the store, and two I put in my pocket. In the car I offered one to my sister. My mom heard me, and when she found out I had taken them without paying for them, she made me march back inside and explain to the store manager what I'd done.

The store manager didn't care. But my mom made me take my next months allowance (almost 2$) in their one week at a time to repay - with interest - the 25cents worth of stolen candy. To this day I don't eat butterscotch. lol

Store manager really didn't care, and seemed annoyed by the whole thing. But the point is even a little adultery is wrong. So is a little porn. So is a little murder (not sure how that would work), so is a little stolen knowledge. Even if you don't realize its stolen in the moment.

Any way. This is probably going to be my last post on the subject till I hear back from IVP. If you guys are interested I'll post their response. Best case scenario they run this guys writing through plagiarism software and/or edit the article with a footnote. Or perhaps have the guy re-write the 10-15 copied words.

I have had HUNDREDS of papers submitted through plagiarism software. It sounds scarier than it is.




abondservant, I would be interested in knowing IVP's response so please do let us know.  I do understand and appreciate the importance of crediting others for the work they have done.  But definitions?  What a difficult business it must be to judge what does and doesn't constitute plagiarism in such resources.

I don't agree however that there is such a thing as "accidental" theft.  All the definitions (Wink) I find regarding stealing/theft, make it clear the taking was done knowingly and with clear purpose, was done with the intention of not returning the item, and may involve the use of force or violence.  The person who accidentally walks out with some bolts in his pocket, did not steal them UNLESS he discovers his mistake and chooses not to correct it.

In the same way, I wouldn't agree that a person is lying if they say something they believe to be true but they are mistaken.  On the other hand, if they learn they were mistaken but continue to say it, then they are lying.

Posts 9913
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 8:34 AM

abondservant:

Denise - I suppose the argument could be made that the disciples all plagiarized Christ/God. But they weren't writing in the USA in the year 2000+. They didn't have to worry about copyright law being broken, or lawsuits, and they certainly didnt care if their writings made them money. Here again we are talking about two different categories of writing with different purposes. One is a faithful accounting of God's word. The other is a defining of the words man uses to talk about God's word. I'm not sure the two are fully equivalent. 

Actually, abondservant, I wasn't paralleling .... only ironically imaging the scholars' hope at trying to find a theological canon trail. 'This is clearly reminiscent of Matthew' (whoever 'Matthew' was).

Actually, I'm over-the-top compared to you. If a writer is having trouble with originality (or crediting), maybe you're in the wrong career-cone. It's just not that hard. And if you have to copy dictionary entries (we've all seen them), maybe the dictionary editors need a new team.

I'm the nasty lady that accused the respected head of Logos, of 'taking' without permission (and a lack of honesty in the process). One big reason why I remain a loyal supporter of his big competitor, Libronix Inc.


Posts 240
Gary Osborne | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 9:23 AM

Keith Pang:

At this rate every single resource we have will be pulled for plagarism...

Couldn't agree more.  If I cited all the times I've seen virtually the exact same sentence here or there in two (or more) commentaries...  Let's just say I've seen it plenty of times.  I mean come on, how many ways can you say the same thing?  

Look, if we are talking multiple sentences in the same article that's one thing.  Much less lifting multiple sentences in the same paragraph.  But the example that was given just seems like nitpicking to me.  It's like giving someone a speeding ticket for going 1 mile over the limit.  Is it a violation of the letter of the law?  Sure.  But is it really prudent?  I can't see how it would be.

Posts 27108
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 10 2018 11:16 AM
Gary Osborne:
Is it a violation of the letter of the law?  Sure.  But is it really prudent?  I can't see how it would be.
That's because it wasn't YOUR work which was stolen!

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Page 2 of 4 (73 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS