A Proposed Taxonomy of Plagiarism Or, what we talk about when we talk about plagiarism by Rick Webb.
From the post:
What with the recent Rand Paul plagiarism scandal, I’d like to propose a new taxonomy of plagiarism. Some plagiarism is worse than others, and the basic definition of plagiarism that most people learned in school is only part of it.
Chris Hayes started off his show today by referencing the Wikipedia definition of plagiarism: “the ‘wrongful appropriation’ and ‘purloining and publication’ of another author’s ‘language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,’ and the representation of them as one’s own original work.” The important point here that most people overlook is the theft of ideas. We all learn in school that plagiarism exists if we wholesale copy and paste other people’s words. But ideas are actually a big part of it.
Interesting read but I am not sure the taxonomy is fine grained enough.
Topic maps, like any other publication, has the potential for plagiarism. But I would make plagiarism distinctions for topic maps content based upon its intended audience.
For example, if I were writing a topic map about topic maps, there would be a lot of terms and subjects which I would use, relying on the background of the audience to know they did not originate with me.
But when I moved into the first instance of an idea being proposed, etc., then I should be using more formal citation because that enables the reader to track the development of a particular idea or strategy. It would be inappropriate to talk about tolog, for example, without crediting Lars Marius Garshol with its creation and clearly distinguishing any statements about tolog as being from particular sources.
All topic map followers already know those facts but in formal writing, you should help the reader with tracking down the sources you relied upon.
Completely different case in a committee discussion of tolog, no one is going to footnote their comments and hopefully if you are participating in a discussion of tolog, you are aware of its origins.
On the Rand Paul “scandal,” I think the media reaction cheapens the notion of plagiarism.
A better response to Rand Paul (you pick the topic) would be:
[Senator Paul], what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. (Billy Madison)
A new slogan for CNN (original): CNN: Spreading Dumbness 24X7.