Having seen a few articles have the comment 'already done' followed by a link, including one of my own http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=31809 , I was wondering what classes as plagiarism. If the headline is similar but content is different, or if an article is written is similar to another but only because great minds think alike, does that count as plagiarism?. What is the etiquette in these cases? Does the first person to post have full intellectual right to the basic idea or should we just appreciate all work for what it is.???
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
what counts as plagiarism
(26 posts) (13 voices)
-
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberDon't think it's actually an accusation of plagiarism: we all know it's easy to arrive at the same idea as one that's been done before.
It's just helpful to know that it's happened, or you end up wondering why your sub is being ignored.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I agree with wayland, don't think it's generally an accusation of plagiarism, just pointing it out.
Posted 1 year ago # -
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberVCG,
You completely stole that response from me.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Completely accidental I assure you. Although the correct way to point it out is with a link to the original...
Posted 1 year ago # -
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberI'll give it a go, but don't blame me if I break the internet:
Posted 1 year ago # -
thisisall1word
offlineMemberHmm, well not sure that it's actually an accusation of plagiarism, all of us know that it's easy to arrive at the same sort of idea as one that's been done before.
But it will be helpful to know that it's happened, or you end up pondering why your sub is being ignored.
Posted 1 year ago # -
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberthisisall1word:
I'm pretty sure I've read a similar response before. I'll have a look through the archives.
Posted 1 year ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMemberA stiffled cough <ahem> is more polite than simply bumping your original sub and making the accidental plagiarist look like a cnut.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Its possible to plagiarize by copying an idea (or a template of an idea) from another humour site.
But why? There's no money to had and nobody knows who you are (other than you're a sad bastard).
I've checked on a few occasions whether an idea has been done before (and on a couple of occasions it has) but if the idea is even partially derivative then you might as well say up front.
My skit on the end-of-term message from the Principal of the School of Hard Knocks was original but the idea of such a school was (it turned out) not original on NB.
Frankly I read other humour sites if I get stuck for something to write about, but I just admire originality rather than copy any of it.
I haven't been here that long. Has anyone been caught at it?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Textbook
offlineMemberIt would be difficult to prove plagiarism here because the "I just happened to have the same idea" argument is entirely plausible and hard to disprove. But as someone said, why would you plagiarise? There's no money or other type of reward involved.
I used to write a philosophy column for the student paper and after one piece I got a number of angry letters telling me that it was a complete rip-off on the theories of Schopenhauer and it was disgraceful of me not even mentioning him in the piece. Thing was, at the time I had honestly not read one word of Schopenhauer. I had independently arrived at a way of thinking very similar to his. Now that was quite annoying because people were like "Oh come on, what philosophy expert hasn't read any Schopenhauer?" (remiss of me perhaps but you have to work your way through these things, no one's read everything) and there was suspicion that I really had tried to pull a fast one.
Posted 1 year ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMemberI can sypathise with Texty. Long, long before the Interweb, I finished my final year project and then set about building a retrospective bibliography. I discovered a library which had evaded me for 4 years. I also discovered a pamphlet with the exact same title as my "original research" which had been written before I was born. Surprising as the title was "Cryogenic tensile testing of spheroidal graphite cast iron". I just changed the title of mine to "The development of simple laboritory equipment to recreate the ....". I was shit at metallurgy anyway.
Posted 1 year ago # -
bonjonelson
offlineMemberIn answer to the original question, Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work, but the notion remains problematic with nebulous boundaries. The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement, while in the previous centuries authors and artists were encouraged to "copy the masters as closely as possible" and avoid "unnecessary invention."
The 18th century new morals have been institutionalized and enforced prominently in the sectors of academia and journalism, where plagiarism is now considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics, subject to sanctions like expulsion and other severe career damage. Not so in the arts, which not only have resisted in their long-established tradition of copying as a fundamental practice of the creative process, but with the boom of the modernist and postmodern movements in the 20th century, this practice has been heightened as the central and representative artistic device. Plagiarism remains tolerated by 21st century artists.
Plagiarism is not a crime per se but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offence, and cases of plagiarism can involve liability for copyright infringement.
Posted 1 year ago # -
thisisall1word
offlineMemberI think you're inferring that button was insinuating rather than implying there bonjo, you dirty word thief, you.
Posted 1 year ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMemberAh but: I think the fundimental issue is "passing it off as your own". Whilst copying from the masters may have been lauded, copying and then signing it with their name for material gain would be fraud but not pagiarism as it is not being passed off, blah blah etc...bored now.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.