Talk:Plagiarism

Self-plagiarism?
I propose deleting this very confused and confusing section because it is self-contradictory, and lacks any relevant examples. One cannot be accused of plagiarising oneself. Peterlewis (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, one can. This is why, in academic writing, people place things they have previously written in quotes and provide references.  Exploding Boy (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So give some examples, rather than theorising. Quotes in academic writing are to other people, and not oneself. If you don't provide refs to your own previous work, the only thing you can be accused of is stupidity. The whole idea is piffle. Peterlewis (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon? First of all, I find your demeanour a little combative.  Second, I have no idea what you mean by "Quotes in academic writing are to other people, and not oneself."   Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged, p. 1728, see the original link [here). says that plagiarism is "to steal or pass off as one's own (the idea or words of another); use (a created production) without crediting the source; to commit literary theft; present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.  That's why people cite their own previous work.  [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The same for you. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no mention of "self-plagiarism" in your definition. In fact, the definition must exclude "self-plagiarism" because it refers specifically to somebody else's ideas. You continue to evade the problem with this whole artificial and unnecessary concept. Peterlewis (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I bolded the relevant parts for you. Also, please take a moment to review WP:CIVIL.  I'm simply here to respond to your original point.  Exploding Boy (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Peterlewis is correct that self-plagiarism is not explicitly mentioned. I think it would help belay his concerns to explain why the emboldened sections justify 'self-plagiarism' as a term: Once you consider that each semi-colon delimits an alternative meaning you can see that the final meaning (present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source) is applicable regardless of whether the original source is your own or anothers.


 * I make the following observation of the posting I have directly replied to. Whilst Peterlewis's posts could both be considered inflamatory, they could also be considered sincerely ignorant of the meaning of Plagiraism. Given this, it is appropriate to give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume sincerity. PeterLewis could no doubt see that you had made sections of your response bold, so explicitly stating that truth instead of explaining why the bolded sections were relevant was akin to intellectually assaulting Peterlewis. I am of the opinion that this is an inappropriate way to respond to a comment under every circumstance, and encourage the writer to go to take greater care when considering responses to posts he feels are incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semafore (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I back up Peterlewis. Self-plagiarism is a rouge idea which is not without controversy. The idea that people could be accused of academic dishonesty for not acknowledging THEIR OWN AUTHORSHIP OF A THING is absurd. There are reasons a person might not want to acknowledge their previous works. This is plainly an emergent vise of oppression. We do not need authorities for purpose of declaring common sense. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Added: you could also have done a simple Google search. "Self-plagiarism" returns some 30,000 hits.  Here's one source.  Here's another.  Exploding Boy (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Those articles you refer to are presumably non-peer reviewed: I was after journal papers which have been double checked by others. There is a great deal of dros on the internet, which Wikipedia should not repeat. You are still ignoring the basic point of logic in the definition. Peterlewis (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And you seem to be unable to get past your own preconceived notion about what plagiarism should mean. You'll notice that both the sources I chose for you are from universities, which suggests that they're fairly reliable.  Did you bother to read them?  Perhaps you should look at them, particularly the second one, before you simply pass them off as not good enough for your standards.  Again: feel free to do your own search for peer-reviewed scholarly articles on self-plagiarism, if articles like that even exist.  Frankly, I don't think the section is that problematic.  It's well-referenced and succinct, although it could use some copy-editing.  Your entire issue with it seems to be based on your opinion that self-plagiarism does not, and cannot, exist.  Exploding Boy (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion revolves around, presumably, peer-reviewed and published academic works. However, rather than referencing published works by, say, historians or critics, consider the student in a freshman composition course, who, instead of performing the work asked of them by their professors, decides to hand in the work they wrote during their senior year of high school in English.  How would this not be self-plagiarism?  A deliberate attempt to deceive and/or pass off something previously written as original. Papascarebear (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with what I think, but what logic dictates. You have simply not addressed the problem suggested by the definition from Webster. And you have provided no examples, like the article itself. I looked at those pages but they don't give examples either and ignore the logic. Self-plagiarism is a non-existent concept by your own definition. Peterlewis (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We seem to be getting nowhere here because of your apparently being hung up on a certain, narrow definition of plagiarism, much like people who reject the notion of "homophobia" on the basis that it should mean "fear of the same." Your view (or what you refer to as "what logic dictates") appears to be that it is impossible to steal from oneself.  I have tried to explain that reusing one's own previously written material without providing a citation is considered plagiarism, and why.  I have given you a Google hit count and links.  I really don't know what else you want, or why you're being so hostile.  Exploding Boy (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice that ORI does not recognise "self-plagiarism" (http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/newsletters/vol15_no4.pdf) and that the issue seems to me to be redundant. The term itself is self-contradictory. Peterlewis (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good news Peterlewis: Stephanie Bird not only agrees with you, she went to the trouble of submitting a (brief) article to the Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics. Now this article represents BOTH points of view. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of ORI, and your own opinions have no bearing on article content. Please see WP:POV.  Exploding Boy (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you reread that yourself, because it also applies to you. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the comments above in this section are very old and this section should probably be archived. Not going anywhere. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The office of research integrity certainly does recognise self-plagiarism: [] --Dannyno (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Another extremist-laden NGO, no doubt. Self-plagiarism is an oxymoron. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion board. We're building an encyclopedia. Your personal opinions are irrelevant. --Dannyno (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The self-plagiarism section is far too long. I suggest that if we really want such a long section then it should be moved to its own article, leaving a much briefer paragraph or two here.  I'm also going to correct some of the unsourced and POV content. --Dannyno (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of the Office of Research Integrity, which I assume is an American invention. Nor have I heard of "self-plagiarism", which I suspect is not heard of anywhere else in the world, and I cannot see why a student who "resubmits the same essay for credit in two different courses" does not deserve praise for her ingenuity rather than condemnation because she is insufficiently politically correct in some way.  Deipnosophista (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I second Dannyno. Peterlewis's argument is entirely opinionated and irrelevant. Hiretsuna de~yuo (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism by professors
In academics, the professor/supervisor often either takes credit for the work of his employees or students without making substantial contributions, or forces their employees to add team members as authors even though their contribution was minimal (gift authorship). This is much more frequent and nefarious than student's plagiarism and deserves its own section.

Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing
— Assignment last updated by Roach Jefferson (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography by Lareina

 * Atkins, Thomas; Gene Nelson. (2001). Plagiarism and the internet: Turning the tables. English Journal 90.4, 101-104.


 * Young, Jeffrey R. (2001). Plagiarism and plagiarism detection go high tech. Chronicle of Higher Education (July 6).


 * Stebelman, Scott. (1998). Cybercheating: Dishonesty goes digital. American Libraries (September), 48-50.


 * Canzonetta, Jordan; Vani Kannan. (2016). Globalizing Plagiarism & Writing Assessment: A Case Study of Turnitin. Journal of Writing Assessment 09.2.


 * Vie, Stephanie. (2013). A Pedagogy of Resistance Toward Plagiarism Detection Technologies. Computers and Composition 30.1 [Special Issue: Writing on the Frontlines], 15-Mar.


 * Critical Conversations About Plagiarism, Edited by Michael Donnelly, Rebecca Ingalls, Tracy Ann Morse, Joanna Castner Post, and Anne Meade Stockdell-Giesler (An edited journal with multiple articles)


 * Griffiths, P., & Kabir, M. N. (2019). ECIAIR 2019 European Conference on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. Academic Conferences and publishing limited.

Lareinahuang (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey there @Lareinahuang, thanks for your many additions to this article. I would like to point out that several of these sources (namely, the first three) may be considered obsolete for this topic. Much has changed in 20 years, so using decades-old sources is not ideal. These sources could be reliable for discussion of plagiarism and technology during that time period, but should not be used to make claims about the current state of plagiarism and technology, especially regarding its prevalence. These sources would be useful in making this section less susceptible to recentism. See guidelines related to old sources here: WP:OLDSOURCES. Wracking  💬 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit plan by Lareina
-add information in the On the Internet section and discuss how technology has contributed to the increase in plagiarism

-reverse the order of paragraphs in the "Academia" section

-add more information about plagiarism detectors (e.g. Turnitin)

-discuss the potential problems of plagiarism detectors (copyright infringement/adversarial relationship between students and teachers)

-add information about plagiarism in education Lareinahuang (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)