Examples of Plagiarism vs. Examples of Legitimate Use of Material Written by Others
Earlier versions of the George Mason University Catalog provided
good general accounts of what is meant by 'plagiarism,' and I will
continue to use these for purposes of my courses.
The 2003-4 University Catalog (page
29) included under the heading ‘Plagiarism’ two kinds of thing. First
is “[p]resenting as one’s own the words, the work, or the opinions of
someone else without proper acknowledgment.”
The second kind of plagiarism outlined
on page 29 of the 2003-4 Catalog was “[b]orrowing the sequence of
ideas, the arrangement of material, or the pattern of thought of
someone else without proper acknowledgment.”
To what exactly do those two descriptions refer? And how can one
cite sources legitimately? Here are four concrete examples. #1 and #2
are examples of legitimate citation and reference, NOT of plagiarism.
#3 and #4 are examples of plagiarism.
******************************************************************************************************
Here (in blue) is a passage from a page on my web site,
http://www.gmu.edu/courses/phil/ancient/anph2.htm . It was written by
me (R. Cherubin). (I am using material from my own web site not out of
any sense that it is particularly wonderful, but simply because I can
use it in this way without having to ask someone else for permission to
use it.)
Like other philosophers of their generation such as Melissus and Empedocles, both Anaxagoras
and Philolaus seem to have been responding to issues raised by Parmenides and Zeno - issues
having to do with whether we can have a coherent account of what exists, or of anything, if we
claim that multiple determinate (discrete, identifiable) things exist. Like Empedocles, Anaxagoras
and Philolaus do think that it is possible to provide an account of the cosmos in familiar terms,
that it is possible to explain what the cosmos is, how it got that way, how there could be multiple
things of the types we say exist (rocks, trees, rain), how changes or apparent changes occur, and
what goes on when things appear to be generated or destroyed.
Evidence of Parmenides' influence is that later philosophers thought it was of first importance to
address the issue of whether there could be multiple things, and why or why not; we have no
record of anyone before Parmenides who thought that he or she had to show that there could or
could not be multiple things. That later philosophers also thought it crucial to provide evidence or
arguments for at least some of their claims is additional testimony to the influence of Parmenides
and Zeno.
1. If anyone - including me - wishes to
quote this passage or any part of it in his or her own writing, he or
she must use footnotes, endnotes, or other annotations to indicate the
source of the passage - where this sequence of words and ideas first
appeared. For example, a page that quoted the passage legitimately might look like
this:
It
is often argued that philosophers in the generation after Parmenides
recognized that he had bequeathed new challenges to them, and they rose
to the occasion. Cherubin puts it this way:
Like other philosophers of their generation such as Melissus and Empedocles, both Anaxagoras
and Philolaus seem to have been responding to issues raised by Parmenides and Zeno - issues
having to do with whether we can have a coherent account of what exists, or of anything, if we
claim that multiple determinate (discrete, identifiable) things exist. Like Empedocles, Anaxagoras
and Philolaus do think that it is possible to provide an account of the cosmos in familiar terms,
that it is possible to explain what the cosmos is, how it got that way, how there could be multiple
things of the types we say exist (rocks, trees, rain), how changes or apparent changes occur, and
what goes on when things appear to be generated or destroyed.
Evidence of Parmenides' influence is that later philosophers thought it was of first importance to
address the issue of whether there could be multiple things, and why or why not; we have no
record of anyone before Parmenides who thought that he or she had to show that there could or
could not be multiple things. That later philosophers also thought it crucial to provide evidence or
arguments for at least some of their claims is additional testimony to the influence of Parmenides
and Zeno. 1
Let us now explore whether and in what way Anaxagoras should be seen as responding to Eleatic concerns....
_____________
1. Rose Cherubin, "Notes on
Anaxagoras and Philolaus," George Mason University,
http://www.gmu.edu/courses/phil/ancient/anph2.htm .
This would be legitimate, as I
said, and NOT plagiarism. (The text in blue is material from my web
site. The text in green is what might be written by a person who is
writing a paper that uses material he or she found on my web site.)
*****************************************************************************************************
2. Another legitimate way to use material written by others is to
summarize or paraphrase others' ideas, while still identifying the
source of the ideas. A legitimate use of summary or paraphrase might
look like this:
It
is often argued that philosophers in the generation after Parmenides
recognized that he had bequeathed new challenges to them, and they rose
to the occasion. Cherubin, for example, suggests that Anaxagoras' interest in explaining how there could be multiple things of the types with which we are familiar, and how changes occur, reflect an awareness of the challenges launched by Parmenides and Zeno.1
Let us now explore whether and in what way Anaxagoras should be seen as responding to Eleatic concerns....
_____________
1. Rose Cherubin, "Notes on
Anaxagoras and Philolaus," George Mason University,
http://www.gmu.edu/courses/phil/ancient/anph2.htm .
This
too would be legitimate, and NOT plagiarism. (Again, the text in blue
is what comes from my web site; the text in green is what the person
writing a paper citing that web site might write.)
****************************************************************************************************
3. Outright copying of material written by another, without proper
attribution, is plagiarism. An example of this kind of plagiarism might
look like this:
It
is often argued that philosophers in the generation after Parmenides
recognized that he had bequeathed new challenges to them, and they rose
to the occasion. Like other philosophers of his generation such as Melissus and Empedocles, Anaxagoras seems to have been responding to issues raised by Parmenides and Zeno - issues
having to do with whether we can have a coherent account of what exists, or of anything, if we
claim that multiple determinate (discrete, identifiable) things exist. Like Empedocles, Anaxagoras does think that it is possible to provide an account of the cosmos in familiar terms,
that it is possible to explain what the cosmos is, how it got that way, how there could be multiple
things of the types we say exist (rocks, trees, rain), how changes or apparent changes occur, and
what goes on when things appear to be generated or destroyed.
Let us now explore whether and in what way Anaxagoras should be seen as responding to Eleatic concerns.
The
text in blue is the part copied directly from my web site. (The text in
green is, again, the part written by the imaginary writer of a paper
that used material from my web site.) Note that some of the original
passage has been left out, and the grammar has been cosmetically
changed to reflect the omission of references to Philolaus. This is
STILL PLAGIARISM, and STILL FORBIDDEN AT GMU, because it still says
exactly what the original source said about Anaxagoras, in exactly the
same words, and it does not indicate what the original source was, nor
even that there was a source from which these words were taken.
Therefore the writer is in effect claiming to be the author of the
passage, and is passing off my words and ideas as if they were his or
her own. (Note: If I were to use this passage from my web site in an
article, I would still have to indicate that this material had
originally appeared on my web site, as in example #1.)
***************************************************************************************************
4.
Copying material and then altering it slightly in essentially cosmetic
ways - for example, by rearranging the order of the words or sentences,
or by using synonyms for some of the words, is also plagiarism. An
example of this kind of plagiarism might look like this:
It
is often argued that philosophers in the generation after Parmenides
recognized that he had bequeathed new challenges to them, and they rose
to the occasion. Parmenides' influence is shown by the fact that later philosophers thought it was extremely important to address the question of whether there could be more than one thing. Anaxagoras in particular appears to have been replying to matters brought up by Parmenides and Zeno. In this he was similar to other thinkers of his generation (Empedocles and Melissus for example). Anaxagoras thought he was capable of providing an explanation of the universe in terms people were used to. He also thought he could explain how transformations happen, how there could be various things of the kinds we claim exist (stones, plants, clouds), etc.
Let us now explore whether and in what ways Anaxagoras should be seen as responding to Eleatic concerns.
This
example is STILL PLAGIARISM, and STILL FORBIDDEN AT GMU. Recall that
the passages in blue come from my web site. The passages in green are
written by the writer of the paper that uses material from my web site.
The passages in red are places where the writer has simply exchanged my
original text for a synonym (perhaps through a dictionary or thesaurus
function in his or her word-processing program). Note that the writer
has used my ideas, simply rearranging the order of some of the
sentences, breaking up some sentences, and substituting synonyms for
some words. The "sequence of ideas" is the same as what was on my web
site.
But
why is this plagiarism? The answer is that the writer has passed off
the ideas of another as his or her own. He or she has shown neither
comprehension of the passage, nor his or her own ideas on what it
means. He or she could have rearranged the sentences without being sure
of what they mean, and could certainly have found synonyms and inserted
them via a word-processing program without having understood what they
meant in context.
Thus
at worst, the writer is lying, presenting ideas and phrases developed
by another person as if the writer him- or herself had come up with
them. At best, the writer is spitting out information he or she had
absorbed, without giving credit to the source from which he/she
absorbed them, and without any evidence he or she has learned anything
or understood the ideas. In this case, plagiarism has still occurred,
in that the writer is still passing off another person's ideas as his
or her own without proper attribution.
***************************************************************************************
How then can one use sources while avoiding plagiarism?
The answer is to follow the examples given in #1 and #2 above. If in
your study of sources you find a passage that you think expresses
something with which you agree, then by all means mention it, in the
manner of #1 or #2 above. Then,
explain in your own words what you think the passage means, and show
why you think it is correct (that may be part of the project of the
entire paper). Or, if you find a passage you disagree with, cite it and then show why you think it is incorrect.
If you have any question whatever about whether something you want to
put into a paper would count as plagiarism, by all means ask me:
rcherubi(at)gmu(dot)edu .
I will be glad to help. Remember, it's better to ask before an
assignment is due than to find out the hard way that what you've done
is plagiarism. The "hard way" (as mentioned on your syllabus) is that
if I find evidence of plagiarism on any assignment before the final
assignment, I will ask you to rewrite the assignment. If I find
evidence of plagiarism on your final exam or final paper, I will report
it to the Honor Committee. So, better safe than sorry - if you have a
question, ask.
Back to Prof. Cherubin's main web page