In the last few days I have seen bloggers claiming other bloggers have plagiarized. I have tried to set the record straight within two posts, but for some reason it is hard for people to accept what is or is not plagiarism.In fact, I am not even sure everyone agrees on much of anything in this country, but in an attempt to settle what plagiarism actually is, I am writing this post. I do believe for some individuals, they pull out the “plagiarism” card as much as the referees at the World Cup, condemning what was not a penalty but a flop or worse, using it to penalize the writer of the post because they disagree with his viewpoint.This is a very serious matter to me, but not to everyone else in the world.(Plagiarism is not as big of a deal in all cultures around the world, but to Americans it is tantamount to theft. )Let’s get right to the definitions and then the discussion.For ease of reading, I will provide links to each definition so you can see the source at the click of a button.
There is some discussion about intent, especially when you are dealing with students and bloggers. A blogger who goes to one website and copies verbatim another guy's draft analysis with the intent to pass it off as his own work is plagiarizing. But as the cartoon above shows, this kid did not understand plagiarism. Many do not. The Chart to the right may help to clarify the intent to plagiarize.
Now we come to the sticky part; what is common knowledge?
Terms You Need to Know (or What is Common Knowledge?)
Common knowledge: facts that can be found in numerous places and are likely to be known by a lot of people.
Example: John F. Kennedy was elected President of the United States in 1960.
This is generally known information. You do not need to document this fact.
I would add that one Fox blogger told me that many people may not know that 1861 was the start of the American Civil War. I would argue that you could find many people who do not know that JFK was elected in 1960, but clearly this example from Indiana University, a college known for its teacher training program and a hotbed of liberalism, states you do not need to cite this type of information.
To sum this up, you can use definitions and not cite the source.It may be done as a courtesy to those who are reading, but it is not plagiarism to take out Webster’s, (Or a good Oxford Dictionary if you are from the other side of the pond,) and scribble out the definition.Common knowledge is hard to define these days, but definitions that have been around for 50 years should meet this criterion.
I would also admonish everyone to only accuse someone of plagiarism if you have concrete evidence of someone trying to steal from another individual. To use this term to punish someone that you disagree with is just as reprehensible as plagiarism itself.
Good luck with posting on the web and may all of your posts be plagiarism free.
SoCalSportsFan
All sources from the internet and linked above in the text and listed below for your convenience.
Socal - This is an outstanding, informative and educational post. I hope that you have finally put to rest, the silly accusations that go on continually at this site. How ridiculous it is to accuse someone for plagerizing a dictionary definition or a "common knowledge" fact.
HEY, we have foreign bloggers on here that do not fully understand the English lanugage. Maybe we should cite a source for every word with more than two syllables.
Thank you for taking the time to write this and put it together.
reading this, i now know i'm guilty of it...normally when i cite a source it's something like...."i heard somewhere" or "i read somewhere" or "another blogger said...(but i cant remember who it is)"...it's not that i'm trying to pass stuff off as my own, since everyone here knows i have no original ideas. the truth is my memory sucks, i read way too many posts and cant remember where i read what. there are 2 solutions...1. get a better memory (or start writing everything down) 2. stop blogging. option 3 is to just keep doing what i've been doing, and wait for the accusations to roll in...i'm going with option 3.
Mean, Flying Pig, thanks for the comments and reading my post.
Cuz, this is not aimed at anything you have written. Honestly, evaluating what someone else has written as you do, is not plagiarism. No where have I seen you pretending to pass off something as your own, but if you are using someone elses work, it is good to cite them. This is aimed at stuff like what most of us know. If you discuss Babe Ruth hitting 714 HR, that is common knowledge and does not need a citation.
i didnt figure it was socal, i just realized i really have been doing it...especially when it comes to trade rumors and early reports of free agent signings. what's even more difficult with citing where i hear rumors is that i've been going on the bucks message board on espn.com, and there are some real dandies on there. most are so ridiculous they're not worth mentioning, but a few are at least intriguing. so now i have a question....do i cite espn.com, the bucks message board, or the blogger who posted the information? or all 3?
If you got the idea from one of those sources, then you can quite easily add your source at the end of the post. I would recommend anything that is not an original thought to cite the source. However, if you are reading about say Soriano being traded to the Angels, this is wide speculation and I do not think it requires citing hearing it on ESPN. Again, if you take a specific trade from an insider and discuss it, I would cite it.
Nice and very informative post Socal! I took an upper level English course 3-4 years ago and the instructor was a real plagiarism N@zi, your post is right online with what I was taught in that class.
I have seen many people “reporting” on subjects that simply copy and paste things from ESPN of FOX and try to claim it as their own work. (no need to mention names)
Some people will resort to any tactic especially when they can’t dispute the other individual’s claims.
I myself am guilty of that, when I didn’t have rebuttal to soccer fans I started criticizing their grammar and ability to type out a coherent thought.
“I have sinned” Billy Graham (CNN 1980’s)
Miracle
Socal - When did I ever claim that anyone committed plagiarism? I want you to go and find the comment where I said anyone plagiarized. Otherwise, please delete this portion of the first sentence: "even other teachers". Please don't drag my name through the mud for something I didn't even do. I simply said you should cite your souces. You didn't like that, so now you feel the need to drag me down. Totally unnecessary. That's a poor attempt to be cute.
Again, what is "common knowledge"? Can you please define that for me, beyond saying "it's stuff everyone knows"? I would like you to define the block of knowledge that is "common knowledge". There is very little that I would consider "common knowledge". Your example (the start of the Civil War) is not something I would consider "common knowledge". The definition of "Fascism" is not something I would consider "common knowledge". Does everybody know that? Probably not. You can take the lead on setting aside a certain block of knowledge that is "common knowledge". Good luck with that.
"I would recommend anything that is not an original thought to cite the source."
Thank you for supporting my point. That's what I've said all along. If it's not an original thought, tell us where you got it. What's so hard about that?
The start of the Civil War is not an original thought. It's a proven fact. The definition of Fascism is not an original thought. It's a fact.
As a foreigner, I agree that copying,using someonelse's ideas without QUOTING that person is unfair in some cultures. Perhaps, these cultures do not have the gut to reinforce the COPYRIGHT LAW should they have one...However, in AMERICA when someone does that, he/she is fully aware of what he/she is doing hoping the reader is so ignorant that he/she would have not spent time checking things out.As a foreigner, AMERICAN LITERATURE is my second passion enough to acumen me for detecting PLAGIARISM in its pure form when reading AMERICAN-BORN BLOGGERS.
Another observation is about the basic rule of writing...I saw SLANGS used as part of normal communicative tool without" " sign.. Remember,these blogs are read worldwide. I have people from other CONTINENTS calling asking me to expound on such or such word(s).For instance, "I DUNNO"meaning "I DO NOT KNOW"....
HEY!! FP..I just wrote a piece on last night fight rematch between MOSLEY vs. VARGAS. Check it out!!
"Common knowledge: facts that can be found in numerous places and are likely to be known by a lot of people."
Socal, any fact can be found in numerous places and be known by lots of people. That's not a very good definition, in my opinion. The vast majority of facts can be found in numerous places. There are not many facts that can only be found in one, single place. And, when you think about how many people are on this planet, it's easy to see that any fact can be known by lots of people. Are you saying that everything that is known to man should be considered common knowledge?
Also, you got that definition off of a University of Indiana website. The University of Indiana is teaching those rules as they apply in the realm of scholarly pursuits. You are not dealing with scholars on this website (Foxsports.com blogs). As such, you should never assume that everbody is going to know what you are talking about and should be prepared to cite any fact, no matter how trivial you may find it.
Let's take a look at your handy-dandy chart. Right in the middle, it says, and I quote, "copying from another source without citing (on purpose or by accident)". Just so we're clear, I got that information from Socal's Handy Dandy Plagiarism Chart. Based on that information, when you copy a definition from somewhere, you better cite that source. You are taking the exact words from that source, and copying them into your work. So, you must cite them. Which means, when you use the definition of a word, say "Fascism", you better tell us where you got it. Otherwise, you are plagiarizing, according to Socal's Handy Dandy Plagiarism Chart. Can you feel the sarcasm here?
Last edited by jgrace_12 on July 16th at 10:03 AM.
On a side note, I appreciate all the research you put into this post. Copying information from a University of Indiana Website must have taken you quite a long time. At least you cited your sources.
"I'm sure you could find plenty of people who don't know that the Civil War started in 1861. At the very least, that's a poor example of "common knowledge"."
"I GUARANTEE you, I could walk out on the street and find someone who doesn't know that the Civil War started in 1861. Again, that's SOME RANDOM PERSON. So, you don't have to question my education. I'm a teacher, just like you. I know that the Civil War started in 1861. I said I could find SOMEONE who doesn't. And I'm sure I could. That is not "common knowledge". Sorry, that's a bad example."
Socal, those are my direct quotes from the blog where this discussion was previously held. Nowhere in either of those quotes did I say anything about citing the source where you obtained that information. All I said was that there were people who don't know when the Civil War started and that information should not be "common knowledge".
So, while you're deleting the part about "other teachers" in the first sentence (since I didn't accuse anyone of plagiarizing), you can also delete the part about "and therefore should be documented" because I never said that either. This is exactly why you check your facts and cite your sources before you spew incorrect information in a public setting.
Trying to drag another person down is cheap and petty, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about. In that case, it just makes you look silly.
jgrace, I am glad you have passion, but you are wrong on this. Common knowledge, and I quoted two source, both Indiana and Purdue Universtiy, is exactly that. It is common, but that does not mean everyone will know it. You implied that I should cite my sources for the Civil war. That is my interpretation and therefore I do not need to cite that, nor will I remove it.
As far as flying Pig's blog goes, you sided with Northsider who accused Pig of plagiarism. The fact you side with him means you are attaching yourself to his charge. When you go back and change some of those comments, I will gladly delete mine. Until then, feel free to rant on here all day long. It just drives my comment count through the roof.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on July 16th at 10:37 AM.
Socal, check out this link. It basically says that there are many definitions of what is considered "common knowledge".
Pay particularly close attention to 2 sentences.
"Even experts on plagiarism disagree on what counts as common knowledge."
"If you are not sure, assume that an idea is not common knowledge and cite the source."
Those two sentences were taken from the above-mentioned website, just so we're clear.
Again, just because one website says something is true, that doesn't make it so. Plagiarism experts don't agree on what "common knowledge" is. Just because one site says something is common knowledge, that doesn't make it true. There are two sides to every story.
Miracle, Pap, and North, thanks for stopping in. Also, North, feel free to copy this, just add a link to my blog like I did to Indiana and the Owl at Purdue.
Socal - Nowhere in any of my comments on that post did I say I agree that plagiarism occurred. Go back and check, big guy. You took it as agreement because you disagreed with the points that both of us were making. You're wrong there.
Also, why am I wrong on this issue? Just because you think I'm wrong? I gave you a source that also disagrees with what you are saying. Are they wrong too? Should I go find other sources? Would they be wrong too?
When did I imply that the start of the Civil War needed to be cited? All I said was that it was a bad example of "common knowledge". The fact is that I didn't say anything about citing it. In your article, you say that I said that. That is a lie. At the very least, you should change it to "and I implied that he meant it needed to be cited". That's your own skewed implication of something I said. You pass it off as something I said in your article. That is wrong.
Also, if you need my comments to validate your work, then I'm happy to oblige you.
Last edited by jgrace_12 on July 16th at 10:46 AM.
jgrace, first off, thanks for stopping in. Secondly, I do have four kids, so I am not on here every waking moment.
As for misquoting, I have saved your quotes from Flying Pig's blog where you have already misquoted me by omission of some statements. I am not going to get into those here because this is not the place, if you persist, I will write a whole post later on today and paste your comments in their entirety to show everyone how you have berated me as a teacher as well as telling me to lay off North, big guy. Where did big guy come from?
Anyway, if you read this post, you would see that I said the definition for plagiarism is not agreed upon by the whole of humanity and I am not attempting to tell the whole world what it is, but I am citing my two sources. I am not sure if for some reason you think the WPA, Purdue, and Indiana University are not good sources, I for one think they are. As for them being Academia, well you are a teacher, rihgt? Isn't that a part of Academia? Journalists should be academic as well, or then you guys should lay off Flying Pig and LSU. You can not accuse these guys of plagiarism, then say my definition is not okay for them becaues they are not "professionals".
Lastly, take offense or not, I really don't care. North accused two men of plagiarism solely because he did not like their viewpoint. He rants about them attacking him "personally" in blogs and yet I think accusing someone of plagiarism is pretty personal. Those quotes of his and yours have some personal attacks. Like I said, erase your quotes
This is the quote from Northsider that started this whole thing for me:
"This fellow blogger (FlyingPig), ignores comments and will not, for any reason whatsoever, even consider the other side of the argument. This fellow blogger debases another for his use of research via Wikipedia.org, and then, in his own post plagiarized a definitions from BOTH Wikipedia.org and Dictionary.com. Shame on you, FlyingPig."
Now, do you agree with that statement? Do you agree it was plagiarism? Do you not think that North was personal in his attack? If you do consider it plagiarism, then everything I have said stands. If not, I apologize to you.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on July 16th at 11:19 AM.
Well, now that you bring me into this, I'll "set you straight".
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged edition, says that plagiarism is, "the appropriation or imitation of the language, ideas or thoughts of another author, and representation of their work as one's original work."
The copying of a DICTIONARY DEFINITION, which expressed the work of a specific author, who wrote the definition, and presenting it as your own work is UNDOUBTEDLY plagiarism.
Please read on in my next few comments for further explanation and proof.
Firstly, if you look at any of the websites which define plagiarism from another dictionary, they cite the source, ALWAYS. It's no coincidence. If copying and pasting a definition straight out of a dictionary ISN'T plagiarism, as SoCal would have you believe, then why do all these sites enjoy doing it? Just to waste a couple of seconds to type out the source?
The San Jose Public Library, SJLibrary.org, cites:
"To plagiarize is to "steal and use (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own." (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 1975)."
It goes on to say:
"You are committing plagiarism if you:
Copy phrases, sentences, or passages from electronic or print sources (journal articles, the web, etc.) into your own papers and reports without giving credit by citing the original source.
Quote someone else's exact words without giving credit to the original author
Use someone else's specific ideas even if you restate them in your own words. "
Before you get carried away North, you already agreed that some definitions are common knowledge and I agree that some are not.
Blue: a color of the sky, oceans. etc. Do I have to cite that from a dictionary?
Atlantic Ocean: a body of water that spans the North American continent across to Europe.
Do I need to cite that. Of course not. The only thing in question on the previos post was is Fascism common knowledge. You contend it isn't I contend it is. I also would say you were attacking these two men personally, something you always deride others for doing.
Copy phrases, sentences, or passages from electronic or print sources (journal articles, the web, etc.) into your own papers and reports without giving credit by citing the original source.
This is EXACTLY what FlyingPig did in his article. And furthermore, my response was ONLY DEFENDING the one who FLYING PIG was accusing of plagiarism. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at FlyingPig for accusing UltraMega of plagiarism. Here is what FlyingPig said, about UltraMega:
"This fellow blogger breaks it down for us in a very well thought out “Wikipedia” styled, cut and paste with big word thrown in here and there dissertation about the evils of the hell bound USA."
Now, it's quite obvious that FlyingPig believes that copying and pasting sentences off of "Wikipedia.org" is plagiarism, but this is EXACTLY what he did here:
"Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
The above definition is by NO MEANS common knowledge. If someone were to ask me for Wikipedia.org's definition of fascism, I would not be able to produce it off the top of my head, nor would any individuals that I know of.
I would make the safe bet that if I were to come up to you and ask you for WIKIPEDIA.ORG's definition of fascism, you wouldn't be able to produce it. You definitely wouldn't have been able to produce it before reading it several times on seperate articles, either. There is no way that you can contend that Wikipedia.org's definition of fascism is commmon-knowledge.
Again, you seem to think two wrongs makes a right. Just because Flying Pig was ugly towards someone does not give you the right to demean him. As for taking up for Ultra, I did. I reminded Ultra in his blog that his definition was just that, and he thanked me. It is common knowledge.
But go ahead, continue, it just drives up my comment section and in truth, people can read the comments, my post and decide for themselves who is right. It does not matter to me if you feel like you are right because you are not willing to learn from your own mistakes. My opinion, you think you are never wrong. Just an opinion, but you will go through life and endure a lot of heart ache until you learn that lesson. We are all wrong from time to time, me included.
What's more, the definition of fascism is not common knowledge because it is defined in many different ways by seperate people.
Benito Mussolini found fascism to mean:
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
What you contend is that this is common knowledge, and doesn't need to be cited, even though the source I speak of cited Mussolini as the one defining the word. You contend that this source was merely wasting time when they cited Mussolini as the source.
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
You contend this is common knowledge. And that, again, the source I got this from was simply wasting time when they cited Paxton as the one giving the definition.
Again, you seem to think two wrongs makes a right. Just because Flying Pig was ugly towards someone does not give you the right to demean him. As for taking up for Ultra, I did.
What I accused FlyingPig of doing WAS plagiarism -- therefore, it cannot be considered a personal attack as I was merely stating the truth. FlyingPig was merely being hypocritical when he accused UltraMega of plagiarism, which therefore lowers his credibility in the argument, which I was pointing out. By pointing out this lack of credibility, I was also promoting the argument itself.
I KNOW this, SoCal. If you define a word in competitive debate, which I've been in many times, and you don't cite the source, they disqualify you. It destroys your credibility in the debate and rules you out as an opponent. I was only being nice when I decided to only remind FlyingPig that he was plagiarizing, and not just taking it to the author of the definition at Wikipedia.org, who could have taken legal action.
You contend a lot of things about me, but then again, please cite where I said anything about Benito Mussolini, or anyone else in your last three comments. Putting words in my mouth. I say Fascism is common knowledge and anyone who had relatives that fought in WWII know what fascism is. Only a new generation like yours might not remember the fascists of my parent's generation. That is another part of common knowledge, it can be common to certain groups, but it does not make it less common. Again, because one group is uneducated, it does not mean it has to be cited because they don't know it. It might be nice to do it for them, but it is not required.
Go back and read your comments, maybe edit them if you so choose, but you were abusive towards both LSU and FLying Pig. They treated you poorly as well, but again, you did stoop to their level.
"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
You contend this is common knowledge. That one knows every different definition of fascism and, at any given time, can recite any of those definitions, therefore making it common knowledge.
But, the real hole in your case comes in your own definition of common knowledge (at least, I think it's your definition, but then again, you could be copying it from any given source because it's perfectly legal to copy a definition word-for-word, in your mind). Here is your definition:
"facts that can be found in numerous places and are likely to be known by a lot of people."
Wikipedia.org's defintion of fascism CANNOT be found in numerous places and is NOT likely to be known by a lot of people. I'll say it again, I know of no one who can recite WIKIPEDIA.ORG's definition of fascism. I can also say that there are no other online sources which have EXACTLY the same definition as Wikipedia.org without citing Wikipedia.org as the source of that definition. This makes your entire argument invalid because Wikipedia.org's definition of fascism is NOT common knowledge.
If FlyingPig were defining fascism off the top-of-his-head, and it was his own definition, he wouldn't have to cite any source, because it was his knowledge. But since he copied a definition word-for-word, one which isn't common knowledge under your definition (again, it might not be yours), it is plagiarism.
Last edited by NorthSider on July 16th at 12:02 PM.
With the internet, which we are all on and using, it can be found at the drop of a hat, or google. You found it, as well as many others. As for my definition, it is cited, and linked in my post. Of course you may not like the way I cited it, but I did whether you agree or not. Once again, get mad, start the personal jabs.
Wikipedia is open source belongs to everyone. That is the definition I understood to mean opensource.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on July 16th at 12:06 PM.
Wikipedia is open source belongs to everyone. That is the definition I understood to mean opensource.
But someone authored that definition on behalf of wikipedia.org and thus, the source must be cited because that definition is NOT common knowledge, which I have proven many times already.
In your comment above, you state, "socal tries to contend...
You are putting words in my mouth. Delete. I did not say anything, you did, and you did not cite me. Keep it to your analysis and without personal attacks please.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on July 16th at 12:19 PM.
"Now, do you agree with that statement? Do you agree it was plagiarism? Do you not think that North was personal in his attack? If you do consider it plagiarism, then everything I have said stands. If not, I apologize to you."
Socal - NOW you're going to ask me if I agree with that? After you already QUOTED me as agreeing with it!? Just so we're clear, as I've already said, NO I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT AND I NEVER SAID THAT!!! That's why I said that you should erase that statement in your post, because I never said that. Are we finally clear on that?
Almost all visitors may edit Wikipedia's content, and registered users can create new articles and have their changes instantly displayed. Wikipedia is built on the expectation that collaboration among users will improve articles over time.
Articles are always subject to editing, unless the article is protected for a short time due to the aforementioned vandalism or revert wars; Wikipedia does not declare any of its articles to be "complete" or "finished". The authors of articles need not have any expertise or formal qualifications in the subjects that they edit, and users are warned that their contributions may be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will" by anyone who wishes to do so.
This is straight from Wikipedia. Do you now still contend that a person can not use, edit, or even change anything in Wikipedia?
Secondly, I did not tell you to lay of North, as you again misquoted me. I was telling you to lay off me, because you questioned my education with regards to knowing the start of the Civil War. You said something to the effect that, and I'm not quoting here, if I don't know the start date of the Civil War then I must have a bad education and questionable teachers. If you want the particulars, you can go back and check your quote.
I'd also like to know where I personally attacked you. Nothing I said was ever written in an attacking manner, except to counter your points. If you took offense to something I said, I apologize for that. That was not my intent, and I am man enough to apologize when I make a mistake.
Last edited by jgrace_12 on July 16th at 12:28 PM.
Jgrace, I left a message in Pig's post last night and you never responded to it. As for taking anything back, exactly what did I say that you want deleted from that post that was harmful to you? Email it to me, if you want. teachhre@yahoo.com.
the problem I have is you say you don't agree, yet everything you have written here and there was defending Northsider who definitely accused these men of plagiarism. I stood up for Ultra and said he did not plagiarize, and I will stand up for these two guys also.
I did check my quote and I never attacked you. You said many people may not know the date, and I said those people were not educated well. I never attacked you in that quote.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on July 16th at 12:28 PM.
I am out for the next three hours, I will check back in then to see what you guys have decided to post on here. For everyone else, please enjoy the post and feel free to comment on the merits of this post.
Socal - In the very first sentence you say, and I quote: "In the last few days I have seen people, even other teachers, claiming bloggers have plagiarized." The phrase "even other teachers" refers to me, seeing as how there are no other teachers involved in this discussion. You are saying that I accused someone of plagiarizing, which I never did. Again, please delete that. It's a serious charge that simply isn't true.
In the second quote, you say: "I would add that one Fox Blogger told me that many people may not know that 1861 was the start of the American Civil War, and therefore should be documented." I never said that the start of the Civil War should be documented. All I said was that there are people who don't know that, and it is a poor example of something that would qualify as "common knowledge". Again, you misquoted me. Please delete the portion that says "and should be documented" because I never said that.
I never defended Northsider in anything I said. The whole thing that started me on this issue was that you said that 1861 as the start of the Civil War was common knowledge. I simply disagreed with that and said so. I never said anything about plagiarism anywhere in any of my comments. I made two, possibly three (depending on the reader's interpretation) comments about this issue. The only thing I commmented on in those comments is the concept of "common knowledge". You can go back and read those comments again if you'd like. The only comments I made were about "common knowledge", nothing about plagiarism. You inferred that.
What comment of yours did I not respond to yesterday? Can you please bring that to my attention, because I am not aware of it. I will gladly comment on any question you pose to me. I am simply not aware of what I missed.
Last edited by jgrace_12 on July 16th at 12:49 PM.
In the last few days I have seen bloggers claiming other bloggers have plagiarized. I have tried to set the record straight within two posts, but for some reason it is hard for people to accept what is or is not plagiarism.
is some discussion about intent, especially when you are dealing with students and bloggers. A blogger who goes to one website and copies verbatim another guy's draft analysis with the intent to pass it off as his own work is plagiarizing. But as the cartoon above shows, this kid did not understand plagiarism. Many do not. 
