5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: + + Line 14:
Line 16: +
no edit summary
I believe that Conservapedia editors should not take others' work and present it as their own. That is what you are doing if you copy something word-for-word from another site and do not provide a reference cite and do not indicate which words and ideas came from the site. Regardless of the plagiarism issue, an online encyclopedia written as a wiki is not particularly useful if references are not cited. Students who use the encyclopedia cannot rely on it as a primary source for their work; at best it provides a starting point for further research. Because of this, it is especially important to cite our sources. Students need to be able to follow up on what they read here, and to verify the information by reading the credible sources we provide. It is important for them to understand where the information came from - who did the study or wrote the opinion or what-have-you - so that they can bring into their understanding of the information any inherent bias or point of view the original authors may have. The wiki software makes it very easy to cite your sources when you add information to an article, and adding quotation marks and in-text attribution takes only a few seconds. Frankly, it is simply lazy not to do so. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:16, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
I believe that Conservapedia editors should not take others' work and present it as their own. That is what you are doing if you copy something word-for-word from another site and do not provide a reference cite and do not indicate which words and ideas came from the site. Regardless of the plagiarism issue, an online encyclopedia written as a wiki is not particularly useful if references are not cited. Students who use the encyclopedia cannot rely on it as a primary source for their work; at best it provides a starting point for further research. Because of this, it is especially important to cite our sources. Students need to be able to follow up on what they read here, and to verify the information by reading the credible sources we provide. It is important for them to understand where the information came from - who did the study or wrote the opinion or what-have-you - so that they can bring into their understanding of the information any inherent bias or point of view the original authors may have. The wiki software makes it very easy to cite your sources when you add information to an article, and adding quotation marks and in-text attribution takes only a few seconds. Frankly, it is simply lazy not to do so. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:16, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, Hsmom. Thanks for your input. I would also add that not only is it more helpful for students to cite our work, but it's clearly in the rules that we must do so.
:RJJensen, I think you are slightly confused about plagiarism. It ''is'' plagiarism even if it's outside of academic circles. Wasn't there a case not too long ago about a New York Times journalist who got in trouble for plagiarism? The NYTimes isn't an academic source. You bring up ghostwriters and speechwriters as a counter example, but these people give permission for someone else to use the writer's words as their own (and in fact are paid rather handsomely for it). This is not plagiarism, not because it's "outside the academic environment", but because they are being given permission to do so. Your strange infactuation with the idea that colleges invented plagiarism is, well, strange. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
== Plagiarism and the law ==
== Plagiarism and the law ==
I'm pretty sure plagiarism and copyright infringement are different beasts. Plagiarism is a failure to give credit where credit is due (cite, as in a paper). Copyright infringement is using copyrighted material without authorization or compensation. Plagiarism is against the academic code, but not the legal code. Vice versa for copyvio. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:09, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure plagiarism and copyright infringement are different beasts. Plagiarism is a failure to give credit where credit is due (cite, as in a paper). Copyright infringement is using copyrighted material without authorization or compensation. Plagiarism is against the academic code, but not the legal code. Vice versa for copyvio. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:09, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
: Nevermind -- I misunderstood your correction -- you're right. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:12, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
: Nevermind -- I misunderstood your correction -- you're right. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:12, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
::No prob, bob :)