From a recent New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/31/books/31BOMB.html?tntemail1
'The Naval Academy's history department, in its guidelines on plagiarism, states that citations "must clearly and explicitly guide the reader to the sources used" and that writers must indicate "all use of another's words, even if they constitute only part of a sentence, with quotation marks and specific citation."
A statement on plagiarism that is posted on the Web site of the American Historical Association states that a historian "should never simply borrow and rephrase the findings of other scholars" and that "the clearest abuse is the use of another's language without quotation marks and citation."'
So what standard should we follow?
Should we be using footnotes in all articles in such instances?
I should confess that I have used considerable "rephrasing" from time to time in my Wikipedia articles. That avoids copyright violation but not plagarism as defined above.
Fred
Perhaps a Notes page could accompany each article as in these two citations:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/notes.html#05
Fred
From a recent New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/31/books/31BOMB.html?tntemail1
'The Naval Academy's history department, in its guidelines on plagiarism, states that citations "must clearly and explicitly guide the reader to the sources used" and that writers must indicate "all use of another's words, even if they constitute only part of a sentence, with quotation marks and specific citation."
A statement on plagiarism that is posted on the Web site of the American Historical Association states that a historian "should never simply borrow and rephrase the findings of other scholars" and that "the clearest abuse is the use of another's language without quotation marks and citation."'
So what standard should we follow?
Should we be using footnotes in all articles in such instances?
I should confess that I have used considerable "rephrasing" from time to time in my Wikipedia articles. That avoids copyright violation but not plagarism as defined above.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At 08:00 AM 5/31/03 -0600, you wrote:
From a recent New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/31/books/31BOMB.html?tntemail1
'The Naval Academy's history department, in its guidelines on plagiarism, states that citations "must clearly and explicitly guide the reader to the sources used" and that writers must indicate "all use of another's words, even if they constitute only part of a sentence, with quotation marks and specific citation."
Those are standards for footnoting term papers; interesting, but not what we're doing.
A statement on plagiarism that is posted on the Web site of the American Historical Association states that a historian "should never simply borrow and rephrase the findings of other scholars" and that "the clearest abuse is the use of another's language without quotation marks and citation."'
And we *really* aren't writing academic papers or books that claim to be original research. In fact, if it's original research, it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia.
Yes, if I were to write an article that was, basically, Historian A's theory about Event B, I would give credit. But that's not a likely Wikipedia topic. More likely, an article about Event B might include a paragraph that began "So-and-so's theory..." or "According to So-and-so", and then have something in the links section.
So what standard should we follow?
Should we be using footnotes in all articles in such instances?
I should confess that I have used considerable "rephrasing" from time to time in my Wikipedia articles. That avoids copyright violation but not plagarism as defined above.
From: Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:16:01 -0400 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] On Plagiarism
At 08:00 AM 5/31/03 -0600, you wrote:
From a recent New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/31/books/31BOMB.html?tntemail1
'The Naval Academy's history department, in its guidelines on plagiarism, states that citations "must clearly and explicitly guide the reader to the sources used" and that writers must indicate "all use of another's words, even if they constitute only part of a sentence, with quotation marks and specific citation."
Those are standards for footnoting term papers; interesting, but not what we're doing.
The subject addressed in the NYT article is a book. Not what we are doing either, but the author of the times article seems to advance the principle in a general sense to include all writing.
A statement on plagiarism that is posted on the Web site of the American Historical Association states that a historian "should never simply borrow and rephrase the findings of other scholars" and that "the clearest abuse is the use of another's language without quotation marks and citation."'
And we *really* aren't writing academic papers or books that claim to be original research. In fact, if it's original research, it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia.
Right, but some folks here, expecially academics, regularly invoke academic standards in discussing articles here. Original research does not need to be footnoted anyway.
Fred
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: From a recent New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/31/books/31BOMB.html?tntemail1
'The Naval Academy's history department, in its guidelines on plagiarism, states that citations "must clearly and explicitly guide the reader to the sources used" and that writers must indicate "all use of another's words, even if they constitute only part of a sentence, with quotation marks and specific citation."
A statement on plagiarism that is posted on the Web site of the American Historical Association states that a historian "should never simply borrow and rephrase the findings of other scholars" and that "the clearest abuse is the use of another's language without quotation marks and citation."'
So what standard should we follow?
Should we be using footnotes in all articles in such instances?
I should confess that I have used considerable "rephrasing" from time to time in my Wikipedia articles. That avoids copyright violation but not plagarism as defined above.
Fred
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Plagerism, defined as any use of information without explicit credit, is prohibited by the vague concept of academinc honesty. Doing what is listed above is pure copywrite violation or copying of PD resources without credit. Wikipedia is already against that. For example, all of the articles that even had parts based on the CIA world factbook at one time have (or are supposed to have) boilerplate text notices on them, despite the fact that the CIA doesn't even request it. Same with the 1911 britannica and FOLDOC. I don't think the policy would be any different for other resources. �LittleDan
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).