frank scott wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: The future of plagiarism
>
> so if someone here copies one of doug's columns, word for word, and uses
> it under his/her name, is that okay? is there a difference between
> utilizing thoughts, ideas, concepts, and actual word for word copying?
>
> the second is the problem, not the first...no?
Suppose you were writing a leaflet or newsletter for a local group in some kind of local struggle. I would certainly never pause in a leaflet to give credit to any source unless that source were part of the force of the leaflet. Hence I'd be rather more likely to give credit for sentences stolen from Bush or the NYT than to any stolen from Doug. In fact, while writing a leaflet, the only thought that would enter my head would be the effectiveness of the leaflet. I certainly wouldn't waste 90 seconds deciding whether to footnote or not. In a newsletter pretty much the same considerations would operate. I would probably give credit only if part of the purpose of that particular issue of the newsletter was to direct the reader's attention to further sources. Otherwise, why clutter the article? Besides, it's usually best not to sign a leaflet or a newsletter with an individual's name -- and if the author is identified, why should the sources he/she is plagiarizing from be identified?
It would be even more complicated (and therefore counterproductive) if one were selectively plagiarizing and altering the sentences as one wrote them. That would make a hash of the page with all the quote marks and ellipsis marks demanded by "honesty."
Carrol