Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I'm glad you saw this thread.
|
Saw it almost as soon as you posted, but lacked the time to form a semi-coherent response
Quote:
|
Are you sure you're not confusing plagiarism with copyright infringement?
|
Well, since we're talking about my career. . Yeah, reasonably sure
Quote:
|
Let me give you a different context. Let's say that a researcher performs a study and discovers that, say, bananas are linked to autism. He publishes his findings in his college paper or a lesser known medical journal. I, an author for the New England Journal of Medicine, notice this story, and then publish the results of the study without using the exact phrasing from the original researcher and without proper citation.
|
Clarify. Do you call up the researcher and interview him, or do you just publish the information? If you call him up and interview him (and preferably his colleagues to see if he's a nut) then you're fine. If you don't, then you aren't plagiarizing, but you are setting yourself up to lose public trust. You cite the source not to avoid plagiarism charges, but so that when it turns out that bananas aren't linked to autism, you can say "well that's what this guy said, and I was just reporting what he said." (that, of course, brings a whole new set of issues that are well beyond the scope of this thread)
Quote:
|
While I've not violated copyright, I am guilty of plagiarism. Is this hypothetical example any different than a newspaper or magazine doing all the footwork and a network news outlet broadcasting the results without citing the original work?
|
well, you're not guilty of plagiarism. plagiarism is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author" (Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary). In order to plagiarize, you have to write exactly what he wrote, or write what he wrote while changing a few words to various synonyms. In your example, you did not use the phrasing from the original researcher - you simply published an article saying something along the lines of "a new study links bananas to autism, etc" In your example, you are guilty of piss poor journalism, and I would go so far as to say of being an idiot, because only an idiot would take such an unsubstantiated claim as fact without checking into it, but you are not guilty of plagiarism.