Editing Talk:Plagiarism

From Teflpedia

You are not logged in. So your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 33: Line 33:
  
 
: OK, the point is that if a student has copied a text they, most certainly won`t have read it in detail or memorized it. The copied text is also highy likely to be of a standard above their ability, because that is the whole idea: to get a better mark. Even if they are just lazy and are capable of producing a text of the same standard, chances are they won`t know how to reproduce the most complicated sections of the text. Additionaly, a student will never know which phrases the teacher is going to select to test them on, therefore it`s highly unlikely that a student will be able to remember sections of a text unless they personally "processed" it, as they do when writing one. If they are the genuine author, whatever they have written should instantly be familiar (assuming the verification process is carried out within a few days), whereas a copied text will be much more vague to memory. If the teacher tests them on different language points i.e. word formation, punctuation, spelling, grammar etc, I would expect that the majority of cheats will get caught out.--[[User:Jameson2000ad|Jameson2000ad]] 11:37, 8 December 2012 (CST)
 
: OK, the point is that if a student has copied a text they, most certainly won`t have read it in detail or memorized it. The copied text is also highy likely to be of a standard above their ability, because that is the whole idea: to get a better mark. Even if they are just lazy and are capable of producing a text of the same standard, chances are they won`t know how to reproduce the most complicated sections of the text. Additionaly, a student will never know which phrases the teacher is going to select to test them on, therefore it`s highly unlikely that a student will be able to remember sections of a text unless they personally "processed" it, as they do when writing one. If they are the genuine author, whatever they have written should instantly be familiar (assuming the verification process is carried out within a few days), whereas a copied text will be much more vague to memory. If the teacher tests them on different language points i.e. word formation, punctuation, spelling, grammar etc, I would expect that the majority of cheats will get caught out.--[[User:Jameson2000ad|Jameson2000ad]] 11:37, 8 December 2012 (CST)
 
::OK, thanks. I see your point now. Never actually having had to confront that kind of situation, I still haven't internalised it all enough to feel comfortable explaining it, so maybe you could add your explanation to the text to preemt other Doubting Thomases. Cheers! --[[User:Technopat|Technopat]] 05:13, 10 December 2012 (CST)
 
 
:::Here's me daily laugh. 'Tis not only students we have to monitor. Am currently quarter way through translating a 25-page paper co-authored by a university professor and two other chappies, one of them a director of the largest private institution in this country and a high-profile figure in the EU in his sector. So far, I have come across three instances of direct copy & paste from three different internet sources. Not talking here 'bout a sequence of half a dozen words that coincide, but 3 distinct paragraphs of 12-14 lines each that have been lifted, with no credit being given directly or indirectly anywhere in the document I'm translating. In one case, the lifting is so badly done, i.e. no attempt to ease the text in, that they refer to another institution, by name, as their own! Amazing! In the first case, I have snidely added the title of the original EU paper in brackets after the offending para., in the hope that when they see it they'll have at least a slight pang of guilty conscience, but have decided against doing so for the other instances. In the case of naming the other institution, I have simply struck out the name and written "our organisation". ''Let 'em answer for their crimes'', I say. ''The bastards'', I add.
 
:::I must now confess to having a sorta morbid interest in detecting other instances in the remainder of the paper, but maybe I shouldn't waste my precious time :) Bottom line is, today's students are tomorrow's leaders. Sigh! Or maybe that should be "yesterday's students are today's leaders"... double sigh!! Back to the grind, --[[User:Technopat|Technopat]] 08:36, 14 December 2012 (CST)
 
::::Maybe if you look around you'll find that somebody has already translated it!  I was asked to translate some articles once and found that the documents already existed in the target language.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 14:46, 14 December 2012 (CST)
 
:::::Did you do the translation? I have a regular client who updates his organisation's background info. every year and just rewrites a couple of lines, enough to warrant a new translation. So who's complaining? --[[User:Technopat|Technopat]] 06:21, 15 December 2012 (CST)
 
::::::I had a crisis of conscience and just printed up the existing translation and told my client where it came from.  Gained his trust though. Got a lot of work after that.  Until he went bankrupt. :-(  --[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 06:24, 15 December 2012 (CST)
 
:::::::Well done chaps, this thread is a good read - very entertaining :) --[[User:Jameson2000ad|Jameson2000ad]] 22:59, 25 January 2013 (CST)
 
::::::::It could get even more entertaining :) , but then the powers-that-b. would start complaining 'bout this not being a forum, 'bout not going off-topic and a whole stream o' deadly sins :) Better stick to the original topic, which was...? Oh, yes. Now, carrying on from where I left off, the topic of self-plagiarism (also known as "recycling fraud"), although possibly a misnomer, insofar as one would normally be expected to grant permission to oneself, refers to the reuse of one's own work without acknowledging the original media in which it was published or transmitted. This, of course, brings to mind the notorious case of... Regs., --[[User:Technopat|Technopat]] 05:58, 28 January 2013 (CST)
 
(outdent) It occurs to me, regarding the example I mention above, that of the 25-page paper, that the guys 'n' gals up there at the top are simply too busy to bother about actually looking for the material themselves and just get their secretaries and/or students to look for "interesting material", and these minions probably just stick it in "as is". Which, of course, adds aggravations to the original crime of downright plagiarism: the executive one of not giving clear, precise instructions when delegating; and the moral one of just being plain lazy and/or careless... Sigh! I knew that when I got started on this topic it would lead me off down unexplored paths towards who-knows-where. Regs., --[[User:Technopat|Technopat]] 06:36, 28 January 2013 (CST)
 

Please note that all contributions to Teflpedia are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (see Teflpedia:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

~~~~ On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes, or by clicking the signature button.

– “ ” ‘ ’ § ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → « »

IPA: ð dʒ ŋ ʃ tʃ θ ʒ ɑː æ aɪ aʊ e/ɛ eə/ɛə eɪ iː ɪ ɪə ɒ ɔː ɔɪ əʊ/oʊ uː ʊ ʊə ʌ ə ɜː ˈ ˌ

Wiki markup: <ref>...</ref> to create references in text | ==References==<references/> lists those reference | [[category:nnnnnn]] to add page to category | #REDIRECT [[nnnnnn]] to redirect | <nowiki>text</nowiki> to stop text being formatted | <s>...</s> to strikeout | <sup>...</sup> sup text | <sub>...</sub> sub text | <blockquote>...</blockquote> to create quotebox | <noinclude>...</noinclude> to hide text from article.