Baker exegetical commentary by Kostenberger what's the issue?
No longer published anymore?
Is this the same issue as O'Brian or is it still good to use?
Should I or can I get my money back?
P A
plagiarism
https://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2017/11/01/commentary-plagiarism-again-causes-baker-to-pull-koestenbergers-commentary-on-john/
can I get my money back?
Yes. Just call customer service.
is it still good to use?
As long as you’re not citing it, the commentary itself is still good. More people would likely keep it, rather than return it.
See Steve Runge's post here clarifying that the issue was lack of attribution rather than plagiarism.
I don't know the nitty gritty details besides Runge's post. I agree that there is a difference between intentional and unintentional plagiarism... but it is still plagiarism.
I don't know Kostenberger but I do "know people who know him." I have no reason to think it was intentional and believe his response was appropriate.
Alabama, I have spent some time following up the definitions of plagiarism. It appears to be intimately linked to the verb to steal which in turn has the implication of deliberately and knowingly depriving something permanently. Hence there is no such thing as accidentally or unknowingly stealing something from someone. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK it would be a foolproof defense against a charge of stealing to be able to prove that the removal of property was accidental. Frankly I see calling someone an unintentional plagiarizer a contradiction in terms.
I guess that we are going to have to differ on this subject!
No universally adopted definition of academic plagiarism exists[19]; however, this section provides several definitions to exemplify the most common characteristics of academic plagiarism.
According to Bela Gipp[20] academic plagiarism encompasses:
"The use of ideas, concepts, words, or structureswithout appropriately acknowledging the sourceto benefit in a setting where originality is expected."[20]
The definition by B. Gipp is an abridged version of Teddi Fishman's definition of plagiarism, which proposed five elements characteristic of plagiarism.[21] According to T. Fishman, plagiarism occurs when someone:
JohnB,
In issues like this, mistakes can and do happen. In this case John K, he was the one who reported the problem on himself, and made financial restitution to Carson. He did all this I believe the right way considering the situation. I would like to think that as Christians especially, that the intent of the heart matters.
In order to obtain some benefit, credit, or gain which need not be monetary[21]
Clearly this implies that there has to be a deliberate intent to be plagiarism...
JohnB, In issues like this, mistakes can and do happen. In this case John K, he was the one who reported the problem on himself, and made financial restitution to Carson. He did all this I believe the right way considering the situation. I would like to think that as Christians especially, that the intent of the heart matters.
Thank you. I clearly did not make my point well enough.[:$] I was trying to say:- To be plagiarism it has to be deliberate. Since we accept his assurance that it was not done deliberately it cannot be plagiarism QED. Since he accepted that by his non-deliberate action he has benefited financially he has made financial restitution. End of story.
Thank you!
Frankly I see calling someone an unintentional plagiarizer a contradiction in terms.
It appears to be intimately linked to the verb to steal which in turn has the implication of deliberately and knowingly depriving something permanently.
I don't agree with either of these propositions. At it's most basic level, plagiarism is using and not appropriately attributing material (e.g. words, ideas, art, design) from someone else. The intent is important for legal proceedings, but the content creator is hurt either way.
Hence there is no such thing as accidentally or unknowingly stealing something from someone. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK it would be a foolproof defense against a charge of stealing to be able to prove that the removal of property was accidental.
I don't know if you have "self check out" at stores in the UK, but I know that I have ended up at home at least once with something I didn't pay for. I did not intentionally take the item without paying... but the result is the same for the store. In that situation, I went to the service department the next time I visited the store and paid for the item. It sounds to me like Kostenberger has done something similar, albeit in a more costly fashion.
I frequently have students who plagiarize. In some cases it is simply neglecting to use quote marks. When they do so, they have passed off as their own what someone else wrote. I typically give grace and use it as a learning experience. If they persist, the consequences become more severe.
Here are some helpful links.
This situation is a shame as it is a great resource so I hope they get it all fixed and reissue an updated one instead of completely canning the resource and getting a different author for a new one (e.g. EEC James).
Reading this thread got me curious as to the elements of the offense of Plagiarism and though it will be different from state to state to country to etc I did find that the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations - 45 CFR 689.1) listed Plagiarism as "the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit." It seems at least in this section intent doesn't matter. It seems to me that the word Plagiarism carries a stigma with it but again I'm sure this is different between cultures.
Agreed - at least I have a physical copy to fall back on!
This is getting a mite ridiculous. The New Testament would never have been written today! (you know what I mean!)
Shalom
Really much to do about nothing- JK acknowledged the error and taken steps to correct it- keep the resource.
Oxford University says the following, "Plagiarism may be intentional or reckless, or unintentional. Under the regulations for examinations, intentional or reckless plagiarism is a disciplinary offence."
It acknowledges that unintentional plagiarism is still plagiarism, but also acknowledges that intent is important in determining sanctions.
OK, thanks Mark. I can't win them all!!
I was going to post the sentiments of your words above but then saw your post. Well said[Y].
Kind regards
