OT: Plagiarism vs Aggregation. How to Split Grey Hairs
This article below is from Washington Post (sits toward the left, if not familiar). They fired a new reporter, and interestingly described the hair-splitting.
My impression, for Bible commentary writers, looks a whole lot like 'aggregation' issues. I think the forum struggles with 'plagiarism' ... seeming to need something less stark.
The cartoon below seemed to display the problem facing modern commentary authors ... the internet awaiting their brave opus's.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
Comments
-
Euphemisms can be useful social tools when someone has to be called out in a way that causes as little drama as possible. But whatever words we may choose to use, it sounds like this young writer repackaged others' work in a way that is ethically indefensible. You can't simply re-write someone else's work - without attribution - and claim it as your own. I get that she may not have realized this given the repost-retweet culture of today's social media, but still . . . it's not right.
0 -
I still consider it "plagiarism." The Post is trying to play it both ways. They want to get rid of her for doing wrong, but not be stained with the fact that an employee was engaged in "plagiarism." Aggregation sounds so much nicer.
FWIW - I consider plagiarism to have many levels, some much less egregious than others. In many cases "aggregation" is worse than other forms!
0 -
Words are interesting.
One word (plagiarism) to cover fraud (clear intent to cheat) and the same word for beyond-the-pail-sloppy.
I refer to the ECC James case. Irrespective of a paper’s reasoning, the ECC gentleman appears not to have done it purposely, but is given a single convicting word?
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
the ECC gentleman appears not to have done it purposely, but is given a single convicting word?
There are many such words. Take "manslaughter." In some jurisdictions a person can neglect to secure his pool. If a child wanders in and drowns, it is considered criminally negligent manslaughter.
In some cases people put too much weight on the word... in others, not enough.
I don't know enough about the situation you mention to make an assessment one way or the other.
0 -
The worst kind of plagiarism I’ve seen was a “preacher” translating lessons from another preacher’s book I own and then publishing those lessons as if he had come up with them on his own. I brought that to the attention of the “editor” of the “newspaper“ and he said he didn’t care as long as the brotherhood “was being edified.” He then went on to give me a list of all the things he did in order to get the newspaper printed and delivered and said he had other things to worry about. Needless to say, I stopped writing for that “paper.”
DAL
0 -
While I certainly would admit that there are multiple types and even degrees of Plagiarism, I keep on going back to how I learned what it means in academic settings. A Fraternity Brother was upset at failing an English paper and went in to protest this to the Professor. She explained that it is Plagiarism whenever you present as your idea or argument the work of another - even if you use completely different words. My "Brother" thus went from upset at failing a paper to relieved that he did not fail the class.
Of course, I do not suggest that every sermon should have verbal footnotes and bibliographies. Heck, much work for "people" and not "specialists" need not live up to these standards, and can in fact get in the way of their function. What I see the Washington Post trying to do is give separate terms for different types of practice for news writing - which, while the first draft of history, is not meant to be documented quite like an academic paper. That said, just as the is a Byline, there can also be a credits statement (eg. "Based on the reporting of ....") As a profession, they are free to come up with standards of when exactly something is "common knowledge" that needs not be cited, and when and how exactly to give credit. That is a significant part of those style guides, after all.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
it is Plagiarism whenever you present as your idea or argument the work of another - even if you use completely different words
That's actually a pretty bad definition of plagiarism, and she convicted herself when she gave it to you. I assure you, that definition had been arrived at before she said it, and since she didn't attribute her own (completely different) wording of the definition to the original source, she committed plagiarism by her own (faulty) definition.
But then, I've never found a completely satisfactory definition, and I have taught research writing numerous times in my career. Having to explain a concept to curious/fearful students when you really can't define it precisely is always an interesting project.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
Dang plagiarists! Better include Peter in there...
or was it Jude...?
And those dang gospel writers!....
and Job....
and the writers of Chronicles..... or was it kings....
and ....er or.... mmmmmmjjmmmmmm.......
Thought I'd stir the pot a little....
Literary conventions were different in the ancient world. This is broader than just matters of attribution. You didn't get copyright protection, either. The fact that authors who lived thousands of years ago, in a world without copyrights, freely borrowed and adapted existing works without attribution is no justification for a journalist to do the same thing today.
0 -
Dang plagiarists! Better include Peter in there...
I think it was Peter. " Hey, Jude, don'be afraid .... I can copy you .... and make it be....eee.....tter." I wonder if I plagiarized.
My main 'question' intro'ing the newspaper, is should the Christians destroy their scholars for what appears to be attribution sloppiness? One foul and you're out. My impression is the 'academic' perspective says 'absolutely'. And remove the body too, for goodness sakes.
I don't think the theologians ever quite came to grips with the non-Jesus disciple copying his message. And why the disciples were incensed.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
...should the Christians destroy their scholars for what appears to be attribution sloppiness?
In my judgment? No.
Having said that, Christians should strive for excellence. As a community, we should foster a culture of gratefully giving credit to everyone whose work we rely on. Not because we're playing a gotcha game, but because it's the right thing to do.
We should also recognize that if Christian scholars expect to be taken seriously by other scholars, they must as a practical matter ensure that their work meets the highest academic standards. That includes current standards for attribution and citation.
So forgive? Absolutely. Make excuses? No.
0 -
Of course, I do not suggest that every sermon should have verbal footnotes and bibliographies. Heck, much work for "people" and not "specialists" need not live up to these standards, and can in fact get in the way of their function.
I personally try to footnote every quote or paraphrase I take from one of my sources in my sermons. Not that I mention the name of the source from the pulpit (I usually don't, as that is just a distraction; I may say "one commentator says..." or if it's a famous author they would have heard of [and my church is pretty well-read] I might mention the name). But if anyone ever asks for the sermon transcript I want the attributions to be in there so nobody thinks I'm claiming such brilliance as my own. Or if I ever end up using any of that material for an article I'm writing down he road, I want to know where I got what, so I can properly document it.
0 -
Christians should strive for excellence. As a community, we should foster a culture of gratefully giving credit to everyone whose work we rely on. Not because we're playing a gotcha game, but because it's the right thing to do.
We should also recognize that if Christian scholars expect to be taken seriously by other scholars, they must as a practical matter ensure that their work meets the highest academic standards. That includes current standards for attribution and citation.
[Y]
0 -
I personally try to footnote every quote or paraphrase I take from one of my sources in my sermons. Not that I mention the name of the source from the pulpit... if anyone ever asks for the sermon transcript I want the attributions to be in there so nobody thinks I'm claiming such brilliance as my own.
[Y]
0
