This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2005 – 2007 2008 –

Plagerized Definition

This definition is exactly like that found in other sources such as dictionary.com Why is there no source citeed for the definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmitchell (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deleting this very confused and confusing section because it is self-contradictory, and lacks any relevant examples. One cannot be accused of plagiarising oneself. Peterlewis (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one can. This is why, in academic writing, people place things they have previously written in quotes and provide references. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So give some examples, rather than theorising. Quotes in academic writing are to other people, and not oneself. If you don't provide refs to your own previous work, the only thing you can be accused of is stupidity. The whole idea is piffle. Peterlewis (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? First of all, I find your demeanour a little combative. Second, I have no idea what you mean by "Quotes in academic writing are to other people, and not oneself." Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged, p. 1728, see the original link [here). says that plagiarism is "to steal or pass off as one's own (the idea or words of another); use (a created production) without crediting the source; to commit literary theft; present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. That's why people cite their own previous work. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no mention of "self-plagiarism" in your definition. In fact, the definition must exclude "self-plagiarism" because it refers specifically to somebody else's ideas. You continue to evade the problem with this whole artificial and unnecessary concept. Peterlewis (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bolded the relevant parts for you. Also, please take a moment to review WP:CIVIL. I'm simply here to respond to your original point. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peterlewis is correct that self-plagiarism is not explicitly mentioned. I think it would help belay his concerns to explain why the emboldened sections justify 'self-plagiarism' as a term: Once you consider that each semi-colon delimits an alternative meaning you can see that the final meaning (present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source) is applicable regardless of whether the original source is your own or anothers.

I make the following observation of the posting I have directly replied to. Whilst Peterlewis's posts could both be considered inflamatory, they could also be considered sincerely ignorant of the meaning of Plagiraism. Given this, it is appropriate to give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume sincerity. PeterLewis could no doubt see that you had made sections of your response bold, so explicitly stating that truth instead of explaining why the bolded sections were relevant was akin to intellectually assaulting Peterlewis. I am of the opinion that this is an inappropriate way to respond to a comment under every circumstance, and encourage the writer to go to take greater care when considering responses to posts he feels are incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semafore (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added: you could also have done a simple Google search. "Self-plagiarism" returns some 30,000 hits. Here's one source. Here's another. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles you refer to are presumably non-peer reviewed: I was after journal papers which have been double checked by others. There is a great deal of dros on the internet, which Wikipedia should not repeat. You are still ignoring the basic point of logic in the definition. Peterlewis (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to be unable to get past your own preconceived notion about what plagiarism should mean. You'll notice that both the sources I chose for you are from universities, which suggests that they're fairly reliable. Did you bother to read them? Perhaps you should look at them, particularly the second one, before you simply pass them off as not good enough for your standards. Again: feel free to do your own search for peer-reviewed scholarly articles on self-plagiarism, if articles like that even exist. Frankly, I don't think the section is that problematic. It's well-referenced and succinct, although it could use some copy-editing. Your entire issue with it seems to be based on your opinion that self-plagiarism does not, and cannot, exist. Exploding Boy (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing to do with what I think, but what logic dictates. You have simply not addressed the problem suggested by the definition from Webster. And you have provided no examples, like the article itself. I looked at those pages but they don't give examples either and ignore the logic. Self-plagiarism is a non-existent concept by your own definition. Peterlewis (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be getting nowhere here because of your apparently being hung up on a certain, narrow definition of plagiarism, much like people who reject the notion of "homophobia" on the basis that it should mean "fear of the same." Your view (or what you refer to as "what logic dictates") appears to be that it is impossible to steal from oneself. I have tried to explain that reusing one's own previously written material without providing a citation is considered plagiarism, and why. I have given you a Google hit count and links. I really don't know what else you want, or why you're being so hostile. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that ORI does not recognise "self-plagiarism" (http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/newsletters/vol15_no4.pdf) and that the issue seems to me to be redundant. The term itself is self-contradictory. Peterlewis (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of ORI, and your own opinions have no bearing on article content. Please see WP:POV. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the comments above in this section are very old and this section should probably be archived. Not going anywhere. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The office of research integrity certainly does recognise self-plagiarism: [[1]] --Dannyno (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those people are either idiots or blatant self-promoters. Self-plagiarism is an oxymoron. Tcaudilllg (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added section on "Norms of fair use and the flawed concept of self-plagiarism" with scholarly references in response to comments above. Suggestions? Dr. Perfessor (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time permitting... there are some typos "Samuelson also says “Although is", and some NPOV to factor out in several places, e.g., "discussion of self-plagiarism is the most cogent and well-reasoned treatment". The footnoting needs some work to avoid duplication, and the introduction of Pamela Samuelson in an overly-long footnote is unnecessary. It's also a rather long chunk to use with basically one source (I'd be inclined to balance it out with varying viewpoints). Tedickey (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your suggestions by correcting the typos I could find, and shortening the footnote on Samuelson. The footnote introducing Samuelson is necessary to establish her credentials to speak with some authority in this area. I trust you don't reject the notion of "relevant expertise?" I don't understand your comment on NPOV. The two widely acknowledged authorities in this area are Samuelson and Hexham, both of whom are cited in the article. If you wish to survey the literature for others, by all means do so. I've already done that. Moreover, the examples given strongly support the overall argument. Please read the section in context, in relation to the sections around it. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed a couple of extra footnotes to Samuelson article. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted my edits and said See talk, but there's nothing on talk about it.

Yes, there was a peer-reviewed journal used as a ref... but it was a journal about MEDICAL MATTERS, not about word origins. That's like trying to cite a dentist on a topic about archeology.

Another ref was just to some online site of no known reliability.

Please see WP:RS before trying to use nonsense like that as sources.

Also, your idea of a notable person for the external link is pretty odd. Clearly does not meet WP:EL rules. I don't know what possible justification was used to revert these rather obvious edits per Wikipedia policies. I won't speculate, but it seems very odd. DreamGuy (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I just archived this page recently, removing all threads prior to July 2008. So it's possible that when they said "see talk", they may have been referring to something that's now in one of the archives. Not sure though. --Elonka 23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "see Talk." I said "take it to Talk." As in "you really need to justify - and seek consensus - to remove valid cited information." --ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's discuss the three sources you removed without any discussion:

1. Online Etymology Dictionary: I'm not at all sure why this would not be considered a valid and useful reference.

2. ‘Plagarism’ in Archives of Surgery 2004;139:1022-1024: Article from a peer-reviewed journal. I'm afraid it's incredibly arrogant and narrow-minded for a random Wikipedia editor to remove this article as a citation because he or she thinks that the article doesn't fit the topic of the journal in which it was published. It's on-topic for this article and published in a peer-reviewed journal so the bar is pretty damn high to unilaterally declare it an "unreliable source."

3. The third source is pretty clearly a poor source (a listserv posting) and I don't object to removing it.

And let's discuss the Schneier link. First, Bruce Schneier himself is clearly notable and notable for being much more than just a cryptographer. Second, the link itself is interesting and relevant as it discusses not only a particular instance of plagiarism but more general points related to plagiarism and academia. WP:EL clearly states that we should include links that are "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews" and this link clearly qualifies as such.

Now stop accusing me of acting oddly and propagating "nonsense" and justify your actions. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terms such as "arrogant" and "narrow-minded" are uncivil. For best results here, please try to keep discussions focused strictly on the article, rather than other editors. Thanks, --Elonka 06:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my words and await further discussion from editors interested in discussing this article and actions of editors editing this article. In addition, I would appreciate if you could either participate in the content-related discussion that is brewing or at least administer your warnings and commentary in an even-handed manner (or, at a bare minimum, on my own Talk page to keep this one from being cluttered with off-topic discussion). --ElKevbo (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A medical journal simply is not a reliable source on plagiarism. Period. If you've read WP:RS that should jump right out at you. Expertise in one topic (as that author has in surgical topics) doesn't transfer over to all topics. And a cryptographer is not notable for having any thoughts on plagiarism that is worth linking to in an encyclopedia. Obviously and undeniably. We don't have random thoughts on various topics by people with no background in that topic, as it's not meaningful or relevant. Generally it's more often outright damaging, because our readers may be confused into thinking the person is a credible expert on the topic instead of just the opinion of a lay person.

You need sources and links that follow Wikipedia standards. It's as simple as that. DreamGuy (talk)

Timae attributed the term plagiarism to Empedocles (circa 490-430BC). At that time the Greek work plagios, which denotes obliquity, already had the sense of being “morally crooked, practicing double-talk.”

Liddel, Scott R. (1968). A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1056, 1410.

I agree that the Online Etymology Dictionary is not a particularly credible source, being a .com with about as much reliability as somebody's blog. The medical journal is an odd choice, only 2.5 pages long, with 35 references (some of them dictionaries...), but it does have some interesting examples of early medical plagiarism towards the end. Other than that, it is not a particularly sophisticated treatment of plagiarism, and its brief mention of self-plagiarism is contra experts cited in the WP article. Hopefully Liddel will assist you in resolving this difficulty. It was in the medical journal article and I checked it. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that your interpretation of RS is incorrect and narrow-sighted but I'm not going to continue to argue as I have no strong interest in this article other than removing vandalism. Since you have such a strong interest in this topic, I'm going to delist this from my Watchlist and you can take over. Have fun! --ElKevbo (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - I made some changes to the section on self-plagiarism recently; the main purpose of this was to more clearly distinguish between the legal issues of self-plagiarism and the ethical issues. The legal issues are only at issue when a legal transfer of copyright has taken place. The concept of "fair use" in United States copyright law is a very specific legal term that should be clearly distinguished from the idea of "acceptable reuse" in codes of ethics, which is governed not by law but by professional standards that vary by discipline. The mismatched term "fair reuse" is simply misleading and should be avoided. Please feel free to contest these edits if you think I've misunderstood something here. Dcoetzee 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Plagiarism has been mercilessly plagiarised by Uncyclopædia, copying it word for word. Isn't that Ironical? Look here if you don't believe me. Zhelⁱel 05:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not GFDL compliant, and there's considerable argument on the Uncyclopedia talk page over how funny it is. :-P I'm inclined to let them sort it out. Dcoetzee 08:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]