This is a status one of my friends posted on Facebook, along with the comments that followed. I found it interesting because in one of my classes at the time, we were talking about plagiarism and how definitions of plagiarism are different in different contexts and situations. I think this post gives a different perspective than what we usually get in academic settings.
Some things you might want to think about: Does the author seem to be making an implicit claim about plagiarism? If so, what is it? How do the commenters define plagiarism? What aspects of the definition do they seem to agree on? Are there any disagreements? How do the participants in the conversation present themselves (ethos), and how do they interact with each other? How might you contribute to this discussion, and what do you think your comments could add?
Try to analyze the conversation rather than just posting your own ideas about plagiarism (although I know it's tempting to do that - I had to stop myself).
This fb conversation really demonstrates the difference between a conversation in class about plagiarism and a public conversation about...something like plagiarism. What Colt is calling plagiarism looks more to me like the collaborative type of writing typical in work situations. No one in his office, including him, is trying to be deceptive unless he truly HAS stolen someone else's work and is trying to pass it off as his own and now hopes to get fired by posting about it on fb. Joshua gets at it when he asks "what kind of plagiarism are we talking about?" It turns out not all plagiarism is in fact plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteAs Eddie points out, their definition of plagiarism doesn't seem to be the same legal definition used by schools. In fact, the final comment by Colt (and some of the jokes by other commenters) implies that his beef with this seemingly forced "plagiarism" mostly has to do with how it stymies creativity. He seems to be upset that he can't claim the full glory of authorship over something he didn't have a huge role in making. Colt doesn't actually appear to care that much about the issue of plagiarism as it is understood in schools at all; rather, he mostly appears to be upset that he doesn't have more creative personal freedom in his job.
ReplyDeleteBy using the word "plagiarism" though--a word that almost everyone associates with an act that is wrong--people seem afraid to disagree with him. Even those who begin to make an opposing comment, like Suzanne and Holly, veer back by saying something about how ultimately, they agree and that Colt is right.
The post above mine mentions that Cole perhaps feels he cannot be creative in his workplace. I think, too, he fails (as do the other posters) to acknowledge that certain situations call for different forms of writing. While Cole never specifically states what he is working on, it would seem that he has been instructed to use a cut-and-paste method to generate material. I find it more interesting that the other commenters, especially Paulie, seem to attack a certain section of the public (“15 year olds in 1998 and brain dead receptionists in 2011”) who use Comic Sans and Clip Art to personalize their writing. It reads to me like they are frustrated that those people with the freedom to use fonts and pictures creatively would choose to be so cliché. Even Colt’s last comment rings with a regret of sorts, as if he sees one reality held up beside his own: he will be forced to cut-and-paste, while other people can do anything they choose. Were the situation reversed, the commenters on this Facebook post would undoubtedly do something cooler and more original.
ReplyDeleteRiffing on what has been posted already: I find it strange that the respondents who apparently know enough about government reports and legal documents to recognize “plagiarism” in them don’t further explain the context for doing a “cut-and-paste job.” Invoking my own ethos here: before I came to OSU, I wrote grants and edited evaluation reports (including some for government agencies), and truly there are contexts where constructing a document (or at least the basic structure of it, or certain sections) via copy and paste is necessary--for expedience, say, or to take on the persona of your grant client. And not only does a grant writer copy and paste outside texts into the document, but frequently she serves as a ghost writer, signing and submitting an application under someone else’s name, which surprised many of my friends when I explained my job to them. It strikes me that in some contexts, what is valued in a text is clear, precise, and comprehensive communication but *not* individual self-expression or even the generation of fresh material. Is it plagiarism if no one cares about the identity of the author? As "First-year" commented above, invoking “plagiarism”–-a word that connotes immorality--apparently left the respondents feeling as though they had little room to ask this kind of question.
ReplyDeleteI wonder about how the context of this writing area affects the need to simply "cut and paste" material. In a legal document where precise language that covers very limited parameters is needed, cutting and pasting the material is more desirable than producing something that has the writer's own voice but may lack clarity or even specificity of boundaries. Laws and legal documents can be reinterpreted and sometimes even circumvented due to unspecific language, so in high stakes documents such as these why take the risk, even if it is material from a different source that doesn't allow for creativity.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the writing that happens in the classroom is not only of a different genre but carries an entirely different type of risk. While clarity of language is a prerequisite for effective academic writing, a research paper is not entirely invalidated if a few phrases are unclear. The stakes in academic writing revolve not around the document itself but what the document represents in its demonstration of the student's thought process and engagement with material. Thus, plagiarism in this context isn't preventing clarity but actually prohibits the document from fulfilling its purpose.