I get that this author feels wronged and hurt. But this essay is one of the most poorly argued self-defenses I have ever read, full of flaws in reasoning.
For example, how is it relevant that these people are running classes out of their living room? How is it relevant that they brand themselves as un-academic?
Notice the loaded language the author uses, to cast aspersions on the people she claims victimized her: "pearl-clutching," "puerile," "their precious space," "rigid," "muzzling" and putting words like "code" and "safeguard" in quotes so as to express contempt.
She argues, in effect, "If I could be accused of plagiarism for this, then so could you. Therefore I deserve a pass." That is fallacious.
Notice also that she doesn't provide enough specifics to let us decide for ourselves whether or not she did something wrong.
Again, I understand that this person feels wounded. But she did not use her words effectively to earn my sympathy for whatever she feels happened to her.
As an academic, I’m used to the misunderstandings and negative views of my profession held by some individuals such as Rivieccio. I also know of instances where individuals claim ownership of ideas, and argue that others have “stolen “ them. And yes, it may involve ego. But it does not take much research to determine that plagiarism is NOT about ideas. It is about copying someone’s writing verbatim, word for word, or possibly through close paraphrasing. Plagiarism is a legal term, and one that is a product of the printing revolution associated with Gutenberg. Before typography, copying was the only way to make books and spread and preserve knowledge, and most writers did not even claim authorship, and what we call plagiarism was seen as meritorious. As for the ethics of using someone else’s ideas, citation is always preferable, but whether credited or not, using someone else’s ideas is not illegal, only using someone else’s specific form of expression. And having students use your ideas is what teaching is all about, and should be taken as evidence of successful pedagogy. What is questionable is when teachers use their students’ ideas and claim them as their own original work.
Bingo. This is a total waste of time since this writer - and possibly those accusing her of plagiarism - don't even know what it is. The sad part is this may confuse some people into thinking it has to do with copying ideas rather than someone's published writing.
I don't really understand how plagiarism can't be about ideas. I'm reminded of when Oscar Wilde had a friend who wrote up one of the stories he told and sold it. Wilde wasn't particularly upset about it, but he told the friend not to do the same thing with a story he told about a man and a picture (obviously the future "Picture of Dorian Gray"). If that person had taken the Dorian Gray idea and run with it, making Wilde's novel essentially unpublishable, are you saying that would not have been plagiarism?
Correct, that would not be considered plagiarism based on the legal and standard definition of the term. Think of it as violation of copyright. What you can copyright is a specific form of expression. You cannot copyright an idea.
I wondered if it was a legal issue. However, every definition I'm finding online includes "ideas" as something that can be plagiarized, including guides from Harvard, MIT, and Oxford as well as Merriam-Webster. I'm not a lawyer, but perhaps what can be pursued in court is different from academic standards.
No, academic standards hold. You’re referring to very loose, general definitions that also reflect how people use the term. You can be accused of plagiarism, as occurred in this instance, but according to specific criteria used to determine whether something is plagiarized or not, whether in court or by faculty or administrators, using an idea you got from someone else would not be judged as plagiarism. And even if you want to include ideas, how could anyone determine whose idea it was originally? How can you own an idea, how could such ownership be established and proved? How to determine if someone got the idea from someone else or came up with it in parallel? How many people think of the same thing independently of one another? And even with taking an idea from someone else, at what point do you make it your own, fleshing it out, putting your own spin on on it? How many stories about star-crossed lover have there been? About a hero’s journey? How many essays about kids nowadays being trouble, or society going downhill, etc.? When you really think about it, the absurdity of it all is apparent.
It's absurd when you use general examples like that, less so with my Dorian Gray example. I think there are ideas that are so original and specific that they really can't be repeated endlessly in different works. I can see the difficulty with determining ownership of an idea, but I don't understand how Harvard and other institutions can specifically state on their websites that stealing ideas is plagiarism but never hold anyone to that standard.
I’m sorry you think my examples too general, but I am not writing a treatise on the topic, I’m responding on my phone while doing other things. All I can say is that many people idealize “originality” and that is a big part of the problem, as it is unrealistic. No one made a fetish about being “original” until after the printing revolution. And it would be easy to do an “original” variation on Dorian Gray, I’m sure it has been more than once. As for the websites, at universities plagiarism is mainly a pedagogical concern, and they are trying to stress the need to credit your sources for students, that’s their audience.
When I finished reading this (actually forced myself to get to the end), I just thought what a waste of my time to no purpose. It read like a "she said he said they said" cat fight of a bunch of adolescents. The author may well have been wronged. Or not. How can I tell what to think when all I have is a prolongued whine with no specifics at all.? I have no idea what she is talking about and why Lit Mag News has wasted our time with this.
I agree with Marcia/Introvert UpThink. There are so many red flags in this piece that suggest willful denial of a bad act and failure to take responsibility for it - the nondisclosure of what the “buzzword” actually was, or the nature of the re-use of “learned” material; the self-aggrandizing martyrdom (“woe is me, I’m like Madonna, I’m like Claudine Gay!”); the build-up of a defense around learned material to begin with, equating stealing content/ideas with “applying the knowledge” (“don’t we all learn new things and get excited and reappropriate them for ourselves?”); the peppering of quotation marks; the petulant tone; the blaming of everyone else - the author of the unpublished thesis, the organization; the accusation of pearl-clutching in the midst of a whole lot of melodramatic pearl-clutching of her own. It’s shady to claim to want to have your say, then to continue to hide the details. That suggests deep down the person knows there’s something wrong with what she did and just refuses to be in the wrong - it’s EVERYONE ELSE who wronged her. That reminded me very much of the Central Park Karen’s responsibility-deflecting defenses. This piece only served to diminish my trust in the veracity of her claims and the validity of her interpretation of the events.
My feeling is she can't repeat the buzzword or the taken down article because then it could potentially further the feeling of plagiarism since the originator clearly communicated that her sharing it publicly in the first place, from a private thesis, was unacceptable? Also, possibly that it might then drag in people who were done with it all back in, which arbitration by strangers wouldn't be her point. Not to make any sort of opinion on the rest of your comment, just on this aspect I'm feeling like she can't, and shouldn't, give these details.
It seems to me the only plagiarism was from copying this buzzword? As someone who's constantly ghosted in an arena with poor communication, I can see how the unfolding events were frustrating. But like a lot of readers, I feel there's more to the story that's not being reported.
Folks let's not dump on somebody recounting an embarrassing situation in a public forum. Yes, it would help to know exactly what was supposedly plagiarized -- I suspect the problem could have been resolved with attribution. I find it telling though that they only contacted her boyfriend, which is ridiculous.
Many years as a professor here who has taught about 100 writing boot camps. I always tell students to cite everything, even bits of info they've learned in class as there is the occasional prof who will construe the use of lecture material as plagiarism (ridiculous). The institution you describe appears to have no process in place to deal with plagiarism cases, also ridiculous. I'm so sorry you had to endure this and I hope you find a more welcoming learning environment as soon as. possible.
"the idea that every thought should be completely original..."
There is no such thing, of course. What a bad lot you got involved with. If they're this rigid and self-important they'll be supporting other bad ideas and you're better off without them. It won't be easy but you'll have to shake this off.
You lost me when you blamed “capitalism” for your troubles. But even if I had wanted to take your side, how could I possibly do so when you don’t give us the specifics of your plagiarism so we can judge for ourselves how egregious it was?
I’m surprised such a poorly written essay was presented to us. The author comes across as a whinging, petulant wannabe who just learned some new words, as someone who absorbs information “like a sponge” and simply regurgitates all those particles without truly understanding them, let alone combining them into a fresh concept. If you can’t make your point in a few paragraphs then you don’t have one.
This is a good and disturbing essay about originality in an information culture. It seems to me that people who blackball you, and do not have the emotional maturity to speak to you, face-to-face about their concerns are not the kind of people you can understand, come to an agreement with, or spend too much of your life worrying about. There are many who are angry, frustrated, and afraid these days, and they do a lot of unpredictable and disturbing things. I was recently attacked by a famous writer in a private message via social media that was so over the top that it made me wonder if she was having a nervous breakdown. I only tell you this to share an experience that was at the time disturbing to me and that I now see as revelatory. You did what you could with this experience: you turned it into writing.
It was worth it to read this to learn the phrase "storm in a teacup" (which I now realize is the exact sentiment that has been missing from my vocabulary the past 10 years!). Sorry to "plagiarize" ;)
It is simply not clear to me exactly what happened. But I will say this: plagiarism, as I understand it, involves language. Ideas come under the category of intellectual property, which as I understandbit, is hardly ever protectable. The use of ideas we learn from others is more of an ethical, than legal, issue (I think - I really do not know), and while not technically "plagiarism", is exactly why footnotes, credits, and even "hat-tips" exist. I've experienced (as a clinical social worker who did many presentations and shared ideas widely, both my own and those I always credited to others) having ideas I created used by others under their own names,, without giving credit. It's not nice (and kind of narcissistic), and not ethical, but it's not illegal, as far as I know. But there's no self-righteous defense for doing it.
Ideas versus language is true to an extent. I have read litigation where people have changed around the words but not enough and that litigation was won because the ideas were indeed considered plagiarized, but willfully disguised. I've had my own experience where I was like, yeah, you outright took that without crediting and then changed a few words around to be covered (all I would have wanted was a credit honestly). But others where it just felt like cross pollination, not plagiarism.
I completely agree with the rest of your comment. And specifically to this line, "while not technically "plagiarism", is exactly why footnotes, credits, and even "hat-tips" exist." If you know of any good articles on how to do this well with poetry I would love to read them. I think crediting is so important but I come from a deep entrenched school of thought that a certain degree of crediting is ridiculous so I have no good models about how to make sure I am doing it well and correctly.
Good points - and I appreciate your knowledge. Re: poetry, yes, attribution would be almost laughable. And in our current culture, will some say that poems "After so-and-so" and even prompt/mentor poems are somehow "plagiarism"?
"...why are you teaching this class if you don’t want anyone to actually apply the knowledge because you’re afraid of losing “ownership” over ideas discussed?"
Over the years, I've noticed that people are simply overprotective of their work -- so afraid of the anxiety of influence that they avoid reading other's work, adding a copyright symbol to their submissions, reluctance to share their work (the list goes on). This begs the question of why? Why so overprotective? There are many reasons. Some are not prolific. Some are too close to their work. Some consider everything they write is "gold". Usually, these are people who don't write enough, are new to [insert field], or simply don't put in the hours. If you have things to say, write more. Your old work is your old work. You're someone else now. You can write about the same subject matter from a new perspective. Just keep writing.
To be clear plagiarism is wrong and a problem. But, it's important to distinguish outright plagiarism from gray areas.
Language itself requires a continuing act of plagerism. We adopt and use and share meaning in a continuing process of community.
There is wisdom in the fact that letterforms of the alphabet cannot be copyrighted, that we share and pass along our understanding of the expressive marks which carry our phonetic intent into written and typographic form. Theft and repurposing of words, the vibrancy of slang, from one context to another, carries us forward in a shared potential of understanding. We would have only gibberish if such creations were entirely proprietary.
Rivieccio has a serious point here: the refusal of the accuser(s) to confront the writer directly or make explicit the specific instances in question is contrary to the respect of information or defending a particular text. It flies in the face of any notion of transparency. I worked in academia for many years and any accusation of plagiarism had to be clearly presented and an author was given the opportunity to respond, revise or retract. The behavior of the accusers here isn't academic. It's cultish.
I get that this author feels wronged and hurt. But this essay is one of the most poorly argued self-defenses I have ever read, full of flaws in reasoning.
For example, how is it relevant that these people are running classes out of their living room? How is it relevant that they brand themselves as un-academic?
Notice the loaded language the author uses, to cast aspersions on the people she claims victimized her: "pearl-clutching," "puerile," "their precious space," "rigid," "muzzling" and putting words like "code" and "safeguard" in quotes so as to express contempt.
She argues, in effect, "If I could be accused of plagiarism for this, then so could you. Therefore I deserve a pass." That is fallacious.
Notice also that she doesn't provide enough specifics to let us decide for ourselves whether or not she did something wrong.
Again, I understand that this person feels wounded. But she did not use her words effectively to earn my sympathy for whatever she feels happened to her.
Marcia, you hit the nail on the head. This essay did not make me sympathetic to the writer. It made me wonder what really happened.
As an academic, I’m used to the misunderstandings and negative views of my profession held by some individuals such as Rivieccio. I also know of instances where individuals claim ownership of ideas, and argue that others have “stolen “ them. And yes, it may involve ego. But it does not take much research to determine that plagiarism is NOT about ideas. It is about copying someone’s writing verbatim, word for word, or possibly through close paraphrasing. Plagiarism is a legal term, and one that is a product of the printing revolution associated with Gutenberg. Before typography, copying was the only way to make books and spread and preserve knowledge, and most writers did not even claim authorship, and what we call plagiarism was seen as meritorious. As for the ethics of using someone else’s ideas, citation is always preferable, but whether credited or not, using someone else’s ideas is not illegal, only using someone else’s specific form of expression. And having students use your ideas is what teaching is all about, and should be taken as evidence of successful pedagogy. What is questionable is when teachers use their students’ ideas and claim them as their own original work.
Bingo. This is a total waste of time since this writer - and possibly those accusing her of plagiarism - don't even know what it is. The sad part is this may confuse some people into thinking it has to do with copying ideas rather than someone's published writing.
I don't really understand how plagiarism can't be about ideas. I'm reminded of when Oscar Wilde had a friend who wrote up one of the stories he told and sold it. Wilde wasn't particularly upset about it, but he told the friend not to do the same thing with a story he told about a man and a picture (obviously the future "Picture of Dorian Gray"). If that person had taken the Dorian Gray idea and run with it, making Wilde's novel essentially unpublishable, are you saying that would not have been plagiarism?
Correct, that would not be considered plagiarism based on the legal and standard definition of the term. Think of it as violation of copyright. What you can copyright is a specific form of expression. You cannot copyright an idea.
I wondered if it was a legal issue. However, every definition I'm finding online includes "ideas" as something that can be plagiarized, including guides from Harvard, MIT, and Oxford as well as Merriam-Webster. I'm not a lawyer, but perhaps what can be pursued in court is different from academic standards.
No, academic standards hold. You’re referring to very loose, general definitions that also reflect how people use the term. You can be accused of plagiarism, as occurred in this instance, but according to specific criteria used to determine whether something is plagiarized or not, whether in court or by faculty or administrators, using an idea you got from someone else would not be judged as plagiarism. And even if you want to include ideas, how could anyone determine whose idea it was originally? How can you own an idea, how could such ownership be established and proved? How to determine if someone got the idea from someone else or came up with it in parallel? How many people think of the same thing independently of one another? And even with taking an idea from someone else, at what point do you make it your own, fleshing it out, putting your own spin on on it? How many stories about star-crossed lover have there been? About a hero’s journey? How many essays about kids nowadays being trouble, or society going downhill, etc.? When you really think about it, the absurdity of it all is apparent.
It's absurd when you use general examples like that, less so with my Dorian Gray example. I think there are ideas that are so original and specific that they really can't be repeated endlessly in different works. I can see the difficulty with determining ownership of an idea, but I don't understand how Harvard and other institutions can specifically state on their websites that stealing ideas is plagiarism but never hold anyone to that standard.
I’m sorry you think my examples too general, but I am not writing a treatise on the topic, I’m responding on my phone while doing other things. All I can say is that many people idealize “originality” and that is a big part of the problem, as it is unrealistic. No one made a fetish about being “original” until after the printing revolution. And it would be easy to do an “original” variation on Dorian Gray, I’m sure it has been more than once. As for the websites, at universities plagiarism is mainly a pedagogical concern, and they are trying to stress the need to credit your sources for students, that’s their audience.
Without the context of what was being complained about this, this is a useless conversation.
When I finished reading this (actually forced myself to get to the end), I just thought what a waste of my time to no purpose. It read like a "she said he said they said" cat fight of a bunch of adolescents. The author may well have been wronged. Or not. How can I tell what to think when all I have is a prolongued whine with no specifics at all.? I have no idea what she is talking about and why Lit Mag News has wasted our time with this.
I agree with Marcia/Introvert UpThink. There are so many red flags in this piece that suggest willful denial of a bad act and failure to take responsibility for it - the nondisclosure of what the “buzzword” actually was, or the nature of the re-use of “learned” material; the self-aggrandizing martyrdom (“woe is me, I’m like Madonna, I’m like Claudine Gay!”); the build-up of a defense around learned material to begin with, equating stealing content/ideas with “applying the knowledge” (“don’t we all learn new things and get excited and reappropriate them for ourselves?”); the peppering of quotation marks; the petulant tone; the blaming of everyone else - the author of the unpublished thesis, the organization; the accusation of pearl-clutching in the midst of a whole lot of melodramatic pearl-clutching of her own. It’s shady to claim to want to have your say, then to continue to hide the details. That suggests deep down the person knows there’s something wrong with what she did and just refuses to be in the wrong - it’s EVERYONE ELSE who wronged her. That reminded me very much of the Central Park Karen’s responsibility-deflecting defenses. This piece only served to diminish my trust in the veracity of her claims and the validity of her interpretation of the events.
My feeling is she can't repeat the buzzword or the taken down article because then it could potentially further the feeling of plagiarism since the originator clearly communicated that her sharing it publicly in the first place, from a private thesis, was unacceptable? Also, possibly that it might then drag in people who were done with it all back in, which arbitration by strangers wouldn't be her point. Not to make any sort of opinion on the rest of your comment, just on this aspect I'm feeling like she can't, and shouldn't, give these details.
It seems to me the only plagiarism was from copying this buzzword? As someone who's constantly ghosted in an arena with poor communication, I can see how the unfolding events were frustrating. But like a lot of readers, I feel there's more to the story that's not being reported.
Folks let's not dump on somebody recounting an embarrassing situation in a public forum. Yes, it would help to know exactly what was supposedly plagiarized -- I suspect the problem could have been resolved with attribution. I find it telling though that they only contacted her boyfriend, which is ridiculous.
Right. Her chief complaint was the shutdown of communication, the cancelling while ghosting her. Which is very unprofessional.
Many years as a professor here who has taught about 100 writing boot camps. I always tell students to cite everything, even bits of info they've learned in class as there is the occasional prof who will construe the use of lecture material as plagiarism (ridiculous). The institution you describe appears to have no process in place to deal with plagiarism cases, also ridiculous. I'm so sorry you had to endure this and I hope you find a more welcoming learning environment as soon as. possible.
I think it’s best that students don’t cite their professors, but rather the source materials professors get their ideas from.
"the idea that every thought should be completely original..."
There is no such thing, of course. What a bad lot you got involved with. If they're this rigid and self-important they'll be supporting other bad ideas and you're better off without them. It won't be easy but you'll have to shake this off.
You lost me when you blamed “capitalism” for your troubles. But even if I had wanted to take your side, how could I possibly do so when you don’t give us the specifics of your plagiarism so we can judge for ourselves how egregious it was?
I’m surprised such a poorly written essay was presented to us. The author comes across as a whinging, petulant wannabe who just learned some new words, as someone who absorbs information “like a sponge” and simply regurgitates all those particles without truly understanding them, let alone combining them into a fresh concept. If you can’t make your point in a few paragraphs then you don’t have one.
This is a good and disturbing essay about originality in an information culture. It seems to me that people who blackball you, and do not have the emotional maturity to speak to you, face-to-face about their concerns are not the kind of people you can understand, come to an agreement with, or spend too much of your life worrying about. There are many who are angry, frustrated, and afraid these days, and they do a lot of unpredictable and disturbing things. I was recently attacked by a famous writer in a private message via social media that was so over the top that it made me wonder if she was having a nervous breakdown. I only tell you this to share an experience that was at the time disturbing to me and that I now see as revelatory. You did what you could with this experience: you turned it into writing.
Storm in a teacup sounds about right. It's not as if you stole someone's idea for a bestseller and made millions. What a ridiculous fuss
It was worth it to read this to learn the phrase "storm in a teacup" (which I now realize is the exact sentiment that has been missing from my vocabulary the past 10 years!). Sorry to "plagiarize" ;)
It is simply not clear to me exactly what happened. But I will say this: plagiarism, as I understand it, involves language. Ideas come under the category of intellectual property, which as I understandbit, is hardly ever protectable. The use of ideas we learn from others is more of an ethical, than legal, issue (I think - I really do not know), and while not technically "plagiarism", is exactly why footnotes, credits, and even "hat-tips" exist. I've experienced (as a clinical social worker who did many presentations and shared ideas widely, both my own and those I always credited to others) having ideas I created used by others under their own names,, without giving credit. It's not nice (and kind of narcissistic), and not ethical, but it's not illegal, as far as I know. But there's no self-righteous defense for doing it.
Ideas versus language is true to an extent. I have read litigation where people have changed around the words but not enough and that litigation was won because the ideas were indeed considered plagiarized, but willfully disguised. I've had my own experience where I was like, yeah, you outright took that without crediting and then changed a few words around to be covered (all I would have wanted was a credit honestly). But others where it just felt like cross pollination, not plagiarism.
I completely agree with the rest of your comment. And specifically to this line, "while not technically "plagiarism", is exactly why footnotes, credits, and even "hat-tips" exist." If you know of any good articles on how to do this well with poetry I would love to read them. I think crediting is so important but I come from a deep entrenched school of thought that a certain degree of crediting is ridiculous so I have no good models about how to make sure I am doing it well and correctly.
Good points - and I appreciate your knowledge. Re: poetry, yes, attribution would be almost laughable. And in our current culture, will some say that poems "After so-and-so" and even prompt/mentor poems are somehow "plagiarism"?
There's some good food for thought in this.
"...why are you teaching this class if you don’t want anyone to actually apply the knowledge because you’re afraid of losing “ownership” over ideas discussed?"
Over the years, I've noticed that people are simply overprotective of their work -- so afraid of the anxiety of influence that they avoid reading other's work, adding a copyright symbol to their submissions, reluctance to share their work (the list goes on). This begs the question of why? Why so overprotective? There are many reasons. Some are not prolific. Some are too close to their work. Some consider everything they write is "gold". Usually, these are people who don't write enough, are new to [insert field], or simply don't put in the hours. If you have things to say, write more. Your old work is your old work. You're someone else now. You can write about the same subject matter from a new perspective. Just keep writing.
To be clear plagiarism is wrong and a problem. But, it's important to distinguish outright plagiarism from gray areas.
https://www.pw.org/content/lit_mags_confront_a_serial_plagiarist
Language itself requires a continuing act of plagerism. We adopt and use and share meaning in a continuing process of community.
There is wisdom in the fact that letterforms of the alphabet cannot be copyrighted, that we share and pass along our understanding of the expressive marks which carry our phonetic intent into written and typographic form. Theft and repurposing of words, the vibrancy of slang, from one context to another, carries us forward in a shared potential of understanding. We would have only gibberish if such creations were entirely proprietary.
Rivieccio has a serious point here: the refusal of the accuser(s) to confront the writer directly or make explicit the specific instances in question is contrary to the respect of information or defending a particular text. It flies in the face of any notion of transparency. I worked in academia for many years and any accusation of plagiarism had to be clearly presented and an author was given the opportunity to respond, revise or retract. The behavior of the accusers here isn't academic. It's cultish.