Education or Plagiarism?

[pljames]

I love learning but I cannot remember the whole book. I take what I can understand and apply it to my own personal understanding making it my philosophy. So I have changed the original thought to my thought. Is this learning approach correct morally, existentially, what? pljames

[ecoli]

That's not plagarism, so it's ok. After all, how can we form ideas without knowing what people were thinking before us? Without borrowing ideas, there would be no progress.

[Bignose]

plagiarism is defined to be "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. "

 

So, so long as you acknowledge (and cite properly) that the orignal idea came from a different author, you certainly can modify and expand and thoroughly make info your own. You just have to give credit where credit is due.

[ecoli]

a case in point - Bignose did not say where his definition came from, so that would be plagarism.

[swansont]

a case in point - Bignose did not say where his definition came from, so that would be plagarism.

 

I disagree. It was in quotes, which implies and acknowledges that it was taken from somewhere else. It's an improper (i.e. incomplete) citation, though.

[Genecks]

The common sense doctrine needs to be created in academia. Too many people are angry at this unknown, mysterious standard. People yammer about plagiarism, but can a person know anything beyond his or her own mind?

 

These words I type. These things I say to you. I'm sure I learned grammar from some place. Should I cite that? Should I cite where I obtained the word "grammar"? I'm still in college, and I'll be getting my associate's degree soon. However, I'd like to say that no one has ever created a freakin' standard.

 

Yet I've found some standards along my travel.

I call it the common sense doctrine.

 

The common sense doctrine is as follows:

(1.) That which is taught in class is allowed to be used as your thought.

 

Under these conditions:

a. you speak from experience.

ba. you do not paraphrase or quote a passage from the book.

bb. you say something in your own words when it is an idea from the book; you don't not use the same or similar words expressed in the book.

c. you are not directly quoting someone

 

2. That which has been taught to you in the past may be used as your thought.

under these conditions:

a. it's not a direct quote from some person in history

b. it's a historical event that can be found in many text books.

 

3. That which society already knows.

Under these conditions:

a. You can walk outside your door, ask a commoner a question about society, and receive an answer that others give. This is what I call the consensus sense.

b. That which is known because you are a human:

- You must eat, drink, sleep, etc.

[axlarry]

I love learning but I cannot remember the whole book. I take what I can understand and apply it to my own personal understanding making it my philosophy. So I have changed the original thought to my thought. Is this learning approach correct morally, existentially, what? pljames

 

wew... isn't that actually great? I wanted to be able like you. I think that's how you suppose to learn about anything.