The post below makes a rather creative use of red herrings to scale new heights of moral confusion. It would evoke more than mere surprise in people like me who are engaged in teaching and research. The definition of plagiarism is quite clear, as Jose and Bosco have pointed out, and as is being taught in ethics courses in all schools and universities today. No "educated person" in any academic institution confuses plagiarism with research.
Everybody knows that it is basically an issue about honesty. If someone copies and pastes a sentence or a paragraph from someone else, he/she puts it in quotes, and cites the author. If they use a result or an idea from a previous place of work, they cite the papers that discuss it. If it is not published, they cite the name of the originator with either "unpublished observations" or "personal communication" in parentheses. People who come up with the same ideas independently are recognized as their co-originators. Newton and Liebniz are recognized by all mainstream historians of science and mathematics as the co-inventors of Calculus. Bogus accusations, controversies and joyous lawsuits do not have any bearing on the clarity of the meaning of plagiarism. People also get falsely accused of rape and murder, and prosecuted and defended by joyful lawyers. Are these crimes therefore confusing or murky to "educated men"? Cheers, Santosh --- allwyntc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >........ > Any "educated man" can see that there are factors > that can easily make > this matter even more murky, much to the joy of > thousands of lawyers > who make a living specializing in this subject. > ..........
