Oh Darn! I'm A Plagiarist!

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
You can, however, paraphrase. That is not plagarism because you're admitting your editorial position and you're quoting generally...hopefull in proper context.

Hmmm.... That is an interesting distinction, paraphrasing. Are there strict rules that govern paraphrasing? Is it necessary to provide a link if you paraphrase? Some good examples would be helpful..

There is a small set of excellent set of examples here.

This one is good, too.

Originally posted by Badge01

You'd better use 'ex' tags, "quotes", italics, colored text, and footnotes in the future partner.

We'll be 'watching you'.

And, you better quit protesting, or else you're really be in trouble! (I hope I'm kidding).

OK, OK!! PEACE! I quit protesting 2 minutes ago!! That's it. Cool. I get the point! 'Quotes' it is! Always and every time! I gotta go now or the boss will screw me too! Can't be late for a board meeting, what?

Cheers!

I have to say, I disagree with ATS on this one.

As long as he paraphrased and linked where he got the material from there should be no worries. That's acceptable in professional and scientific communities... I can't see why it should be taboo here.

If the material is not paraphrased, it must be quoted. He cannot steal quotes and pretend like he wrote them without the [ex ] quotes. But, he can summarize the article without using the ex quotes, so long as it is in his own words.

As long as he followed those guidelines, it is not plagiarism. No harm, no foul.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


I'm not sure what academic standards you are referring to, but the issue of paraphrasing is quite clear:

Paraphrase
A restatement of a text or passage in other words.
It is extremely important to note that changing a few words from an original source does NOT qualify as paraphrasing. A paraphrase must make significant changes in the style and voice of the original while retaining the essential ideas. If you change the ideas, then you are not paraphrasing -- you are misrepresenting the ideas of the original, which could lead to serious trouble.

www.plagiarism.org...

And paraphrasing was not the issue here... It was the complete and unaltered copy & pasting of someone else's words into a post, sans tags, citation, or attribution...

In no uncertain terms... If you did not write it (it is not your original thought), it has to be contained within the appropriate tags (almost always the "EX" tags and a link given). If the material is from a source that cannot be found online then the appropriate tags combined with the title an author of the work along with any date, issue, volume or other periodical identifier is necessary. To use someone else's work as you own is supremely dishonest, and will not be tolerated here at ATS.

ATS has gone to great lengths to protect the work of it's members, please extend that courtesy to the rest of the World Wide Web, and whatever sources have not yet transitioned into the 21st century.

[edit on 13/9/2008 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Weird. This thread showed up on my recent list even though the last post was last year...

Anyway, I said it's only summarizing if he put it in his own words (and not if he copied and pasted quotes - which would require quotes around or ex tags).



[edit on 13-9-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


Please understand... There was no paraphrasing, summarizing or any form of equivocation in this case. It was straight copy and paste. Please do not attempt to muddy the waters, or interject your own interpretation of ATS policies. The policy is clear, and is not up for debate or interpretation... If a member uses content other than their own it must be appropriately tagged, and sourced.

Period.

reply to post by mikesingh

A link to the source article is also provided at the end of the post for the complete article.

If you linked your source it's not plagiarism. Plagiarism is when a person uses another's work and doesn't attribute that to the original author.

Secondly, if you indeed state that you are "paraphrasing" their work, then no quotation marks are needed, because you are not borrowing/using their work, you are reformulating what they actually said and substituting what it meant to you.

If you stated that you were paraphrasing from X, and at the end you linked X it's impossible for it to be plagiarism, you gave credit twice where credit is due.

IMHO, that was an unfair judgment against you. Now, I can also only go by what you claimed to have happened, do you have the original post in question or was it deleted? Also to avoid 'cherrypicking' can you link the reasoning you were given by the mod?

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Not muddying the waters. He said he paraphrased, and I said that's okay. If he didn't paraphrase, then it's not okay (and apparently he did not paraphrase, so ATS is right).

This thread is over a year old anyway, I don't know why it was on the top of the list for me.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
reply to post by Sublime620

 

Please understand... There was no paraphrasing, summarizing or any form of equivocation in this case. It was straight copy and paste. Please do not attempt to muddy the waters, or interject your own interpretation of ATS policies. The policy is clear, and is not up for debate or interpretation... If a member uses content other than their own it must be appropriately tagged, and sourced.

Period.

It was souced, I can clearly see the words in blue "source" at the bottom of the article linked.

Not to mention, this is the first sentence in his post:

"Here’s an article written by Richard Boylan, Ph.D, I was reading the other day which was pretty interesting."

The very first sentence is giving credit to the original author. How can you deny that?

Originally posted by Sublime620
As long as he paraphrased and linked where he got the material from there should be no worries. That's acceptable in professional and scientific communities... I can't see why it should be taboo here.

Hmmm, if we are going to apply what is acceptable to the professional and scientific communities then the matieral was again not cited correctly. Most scientific and medical institutions follow APA (American Psychological Association) formatting guidelines:

Swanson, H.L. (1999). What develops in working memory? A life span perspective [Electronic version]. Developmental Pyschology, 35, 986-1000.

In this example, the online version and the print version are identical; if you think the online version differs from the print version, include the URL and the date you accessed the article
www.indiana.edu...

reply to post by FredT


Look, he said he paraphrased. He was wrong. That's not proper citing of sources. He needed to use quotations or tags.

We get it. However, across the board, paraphrasing is accepted - APA or MLA. Just how they cite it changes.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It doesn't matter. Even if cited, you still have to use your own words or quotations.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
It was souced, I can clearly see the words in blue "source" at the bottom of the article linked.

Not to mention, this is the first sentence in his post:

"Here’s an article written by Richard Boylan, Ph.D, I was reading the other day which was pretty interesting."

The very first sentence is giving credit to the original author. How can you deny that?

This is beginning to get tedious... The part that was plagiarized was what is in now in contained within the EX tags... I know... I edited them in there and found the source that the content was copied an pasted from and provided it.

Previous to my edit that content was not attributed in any shape form or fashion... That is without a doubt, plagiarism. Period.

It's my understanding that if you give the source, you're fine. Sounds to me like you're not trying to take credit for the story. That would be plagiarism. Just think of a book report in school. You are writing based on something you've previously read. The previously read material would go into the bibliography. I see no problem here.

Originally posted by ElGatoLoco698
The previously read material would go into the bibliography. I see no problem here.

There is a professional, personal, and ethical responsability of any author to properly cite sources you use in writting you post be it in a professional paper, book report, and yes even the internet.

ATS has set standards on how one goes about this and these standards are not open to interpretation.

Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

This particular point is not really open for any debate. The Owners of the site have made very clear that this is a requirement for posting outside material here at ATS.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
It was souced, I can clearly see the words in blue "source" at the bottom of the article linked.

Not to mention, this is the first sentence in his post:

"Here’s an article written by Richard Boylan, Ph.D, I was reading the other day which was pretty interesting."

The very first sentence is giving credit to the original author. How can you deny that?

This is beginning to get tedious... The part that was plagiarized was what is in now in contained within the EX tags... I know... I edited them in there and found the source that the content was copied an pasted from and provided it.

Previous to my edit that content was not attributed in any shape form or fashion... That is without a doubt, plagiarism. Period.

Well, then that makes perfect sense. To someone reading it now it appeared that was his original post.

If that is the way it should have been from the start and was not, then of course he plagiarized.

Thank you.

I just hope this overly huge and non-important point penalty doesn't discourage you from posting quality threads anymore.

Its people like you who keep members like me returning to this site.

And when we see one of our favorite members being penalized with out warning...

Well...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What's wrong with that is that it's against the policy of ATS. Period. The bottom line for you may be different than the bottom line for ATS.

So writing a 'reader's digest' style condensed version is not allowed?

How about a BOOK REVIEW which also summarizes key points in a written work. Is that not allowed?

What about material from Wikipedia... Wikipedia comes with a Creative Commons license?

Creative Commons Deed
This is a human-readable summary of the full license below.

You are free:
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix — to adapt the work

Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do that is with a link to creativecommons.org...

There are many sites that have Creative Commons Deed

Now I always put wiki in [ex] tags because its not 100% reliable but I am free to cut paste and add to any of that text, and use it as my own IF the original author has stated I am free to do so and if I show proper attribution

But putting my derived work in those [ex] tags would then infer that the changed version was from the original author, which would be incorrect

Not being able to do that (remix and add etc) would defeat the whole purpose of a Creative Commons Deed, would it not?


[edit on 25-6-2009 by zorgon]