Examples of Plagiarism vs. Examples of Legitimate Use of Material Written by Others

Rose Cherubin, Philosophy Department, George Mason University


Earlier versions of the George Mason University Catalog provided good general accounts of what is meant by 'plagiarism,' and I will continue to use these for purposes of my courses.
The 2003-4 University Catalog (page 29) included under the heading ‘Plagiarism’ two kinds of thing. First is “[p]resenting as one’s own the words, the work, or the opinions of someone else without proper acknowledgment.”

The second kind of plagiarism outlined on page 29 of the 2003-4 Catalog was “[b]orrowing the sequence of ideas, the arrangement of material, or the pattern of thought of someone else without proper acknowledgment.”

To what exactly do those two descriptions refer? And how can one cite sources legitimately? Here are four concrete examples. 

#1 and #2 are examples of legitimate citation and reference, NOT of plagiarism. 
#3 and #4 are examples of plagiarism.










Questions, comments?

Contact me at rcherubi(at)gmu(dot)edu.




.



Here (in blue) is a passage from a page on my web site, http://mason.gmu.edu/~rcherubi/anph2.html . It was written by me (R. Cherubin). (I am using material from my own web site not out of any sense that it is particularly wonderful, but simply because I can use it in this way without having to ask someone else for permission to use it.)


Like other philosophers of their generation such as Melissus and Empedocles, both Anaxagoras and Philolaus seem to have been responding to issues raised by Parmenides and Zeno - issues having to do with whether we can have a coherent account of what exists, or of anything, if we claim that multiple determinate (discrete, identifiable) things exist. Like Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Philolaus do think that it is possible to provide an account of the cosmos in familiar terms, that it is possible to explain what the cosmos is, how it got that way, how there could be multiple things of the types we say exist (rocks, trees, rain), how changes or apparent changes occur, and what goes on when things appear to be generated or destroyed.

Evidence of Parmenides' influence is that later philosophers thought it was of first importance to address the issue of whether there could be multiple things, and why or why not; we have no record of anyone before Parmenides who thought that he or she had to show that there could or could not be multiple things. That later philosophers also thought it crucial to provide evidence or arguments for at least some of their claims is additional testimony to the influence of Parmenides and Zeno.


1. If anyone - including me - wishes to quote this passage or any part of it in his or her own writing, he or she must use footnotes, endnotes, or other annotations to indicate the source of the passage - where this sequence of words and ideas first appeared. For example, a page that quoted the passage legitimately might look like this:

It is often argued that philosophers in the generation after Parmenides recognized that he had bequeathed new challenges to them, and they rose to the occasion. Cherubin puts it this way:

Like other philosophers of their generation such as Melissus and Empedocles, both Anaxagoras and Philolaus seem to have been responding to issues raised by Parmenides and Zeno - issues having to do with whether we can have a coherent account of what exists, or of anything, if we claim that multiple determinate (discrete, identifiable) things exist. Like Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Philolaus do think that it is possible to provide an account of the cosmos in familiar terms, that it is possible to explain what the cosmos is, how it got that way, how there could be multiple things of the types we say exist (rocks, trees, rain), how changes or apparent changes occur, and what goes on when things appear to be generated or destroyed.

Evidence of Parmenides' influence is that later philosophers thought it was of first importance to address the issue of whether there could be multiple things, and why or why not; we have no record of anyone before Parmenides who thought that he or she had to show that there could or could not be multiple things. That later philosophers also thought it crucial to provide evidence or arguments for at least some of their claims is additional testimony to the influence of Parmenides and Zeno.1


Let us now explore whether and in what way Anaxagoras should be seen as responding to Eleatic concerns....
_____________
1. Rose Cherubin, "Notes on Anaxagoras and Philolaus," George Mason University, http://mason.gmu.edu/~rcherubi/anph2.html .

This would be legitimate, as I said, and NOT plagiarism. (The text in blue is material from my web site. The text in green is what might be written by a person who is writing a paper that uses material he or she found on my web site.) 



2. Another legitimate way to use material written by others is to summarize or paraphrase others' ideas, while still identifying the source of the ideas. A legitimate use of summary or paraphrase might look like this:

It is often argued that philosophers in the generation after Parmenides recognized that he had bequeathed new challenges to them, and they rose to the occasion. Cherubin, for example, suggests that Anaxagoras' interest in explaining how there could be multiple things of the types with which we are familiar, and how changes occur, reflect an awareness of the challenges launched by Parmenides and Zeno.1

Let us now explore whether and in what way Anaxagoras should be seen as responding to Eleatic concerns....
_____________
1. Rose Cherubin, "Notes on Anaxagoras and Philolaus," George Mason University, http://mason.gmu.edu/~rcherubi/anph2.html .

This too would be legitimate, and NOT plagiarism. (Again, the text in blue is what comes from my web site; the text in green is what the person writing a paper citing that web site might write.)



3. On the other hand, outright copying of material written by another, without proper attribution, is plagiarism. An example of this kind of plagiarism might look like this:

It is often argued that philosophers in the generation after Parmenides recognized that he had bequeathed new challenges to them, and they rose to the occasion. Like other philosophers of his generation such as Melissus and Empedocles, Anaxagoras seems to have been responding to issues raised by Parmenides and Zeno - issues having to do with whether we can have a coherent account of what exists, or of anything, if we claim that multiple determinate (discrete, identifiable) things exist. Like Empedocles, Anaxagoras does think that it is possible to provide an account of the cosmos in familiar terms, that it is possible to explain what the cosmos is, how it got that way, how there could be multiple things of the types we say exist (rocks, trees, rain), how changes or apparent changes occur, and what goes on when things appear to be generated or destroyed.

Let us now explore whether and in what way Anaxagoras should be seen as responding to Eleatic concerns.

The text in blue is the part copied directly from my web site. (The text in green is, again, the part written by the imaginary writer of a paper that used material from my web site.) Note that some of the original passage has been left out, and the grammar has been cosmetically changed to reflect the omission of references to Philolaus. This is STILL PLAGIARISM, and STILL FORBIDDEN AT GMU, because it still says exactly what the original source said about Anaxagoras, in exactly the same words, and it does not indicate what the original source was, nor even that there was a source from which these words were taken. Therefore the writer is in effect claiming to be the author of the passage, and is passing off my words and ideas as if they were his or her own. (Note: If I were to use this passage from my web site in an article, I would still have to indicate that this material had originally appeared on my web site, as in example #1.)



4. Copying material and then altering it slightly in essentially cosmetic ways - for example, by rearranging the order of the words or sentences, or by using synonyms for some of the words, is also plagiarism, and is forbidden at GMU. An example of this kind of plagiarism might look like this:

It is often argued that philosophers in the generation after Parmenides recognized that he had bequeathed new challenges to them, and they rose to the occasion.  Parmenides' influence is shown by the fact that later philosophers thought it was extremely important to address the question of whether there could be more than one thing. Anaxagoras in particular appears to have been replying to matters brought up by Parmenides and Zeno. In this he was similar to other thinkers of his generation (Empedocles and Melissus for example). Anaxagoras thought he was capable of providing an explanation of the universe in terms people were used to. He also thought he could explain how transformations happen, how there could be various things of the kinds we claim exist (stones, plants, clouds), etc.

Let us now explore whether and in what ways Anaxagoras should be seen as responding to Eleatic concerns.


This example is STILL PLAGIARISM, and STILL FORBIDDEN AT GMU. Recall that the passages in blue come from my web site. The passages in green are written by the writer of the paper that uses material from my web site. In the passages in red, the writer has simply exchanged my original text for a synonym (perhaps through a dictionary or thesaurus function in his or her word-processing program). Note that the writer has used my ideas, simply rearranging the order of some of the sentences, breaking up some sentences, and substituting synonyms for some words. The "sequence of ideas" is the same as what was on my web site.

 - But why is this plagiarism?

The answer is that the writer has passed off the ideas of another as his or her own without proper attribution. He or she has shown neither comprehension of the passage, nor his or her own ideas on what it means. He or she could have rearranged the sentences without being sure of what they mean, and could certainly have found synonyms and inserted them via a word-processing program without having understood what they meant in context.

Thus at worst, the writer is lying, presenting ideas and phrases developed by another person as if the writer him- or herself had come up with them. At best, the writer is spitting out information he or she had absorbed, without giving credit to the source from which he/she absorbed them, and without any evidence he or she has learned anything or understood the ideas. In this case, plagiarism has still occurred, for the writer is still passing off another person's ideas as his or her own without proper attribution.


How then can one use sources while avoiding plagiarism?

 - The answer is to follow the examples given in #1 and #2 above. If in your study of sources you find a passage that you think expresses something with which you agree, then by all means mention it, in the manner of #1 or #2 above. Then, explain in your own words what you think the passage means, and show why you think it is correct (that may be part of the project of the entire paper). Or, if you find a passage you disagree with, cite it and then show why you think it is incorrect.

If you have any question whatever about whether something you want to put into a paper would count as plagiarism, by all means ask me: rcherubi(at)gmu(dot)edu .
I will be glad to help. Remember, it's better to ask before an assignment is due than to find out the hard way that what you've done is plagiarism.

The "hard way" (as mentioned on your syllabus) is that if I find evidence of plagiarism on any assignment before the final assignment, I will ask you to rewrite the assignment. If I find evidence of plagiarism on your final exam or final paper, I will report it to the Honor Committee. So, better safe than sorry - if you have a question, ask.