University of Virginia to change definition of plagiarism?
Following the ghastly treatment of Alison Routman during the "Semester at Sea" program, the University of Virginia is working on a new definition of plagiarism.
The Cavalier Daily noted:
The present definition begins with, “Plagiarism is using someone’s ideas or work without proper or complete acknowledgment.”
To emphasize the question of whether the writer is attempting to pass someone else’s ideas off as his own, Litchford proposed the sentence:
“Plagiarism is attempting to represent someone else’s ideas or work as your own original ideas or work.”
This change seems to be motivated, at least in part, by the Routman incident. [Although there were problems with the way UVa handled the Routman incident that go beyond a mere definition of plagiarism.]
JJ Litchford, vice chair for community relations noted: “To center only on citation is grossly ineffective and insufficient to deal with plagiarism.”
The PROBLEM with this approach is that it goes from an "objective" criterion (citation: yes or no?) to a "subjective" criterion: the presence of "intent" inherent in the word "attempting." The Poshard case at SIU illustrated the concept of "inadvertent" plagiarism and why that is likely not a good way to analyze plagiarism. Few people are going to say: yes, I attempted to represent someone else's work as my own. Poshard certainly did not. Verbatim copying of text not generally known without citation is plagiarism. End of story. The punishment should fit the circumstances.
The Cavalier article also noted: Litchford also chose to add a sentence about paraphrasing in the new definition of plagiarism.
The UVirginia approach is like putting a thumb in the hole in the leaking dyke of the "cut and paste" culture. When the Harvard Business Review has an article saying "plagiarize with pride," the train has left the station.
On the Routman incident:
Allison Routman, Frank Zappa, and plagiarism
Routman's copied lines from wikipedia: enough to walk the plank?
to the Cavalier-->
The PROBLEM with this approach is that it goes from an "objective" criterion (citation: yes or no?) to a "subjective" criterion: the presence of "intent" inherent in the word "attempting." The Poshard case at SIU illustrated the concept of "inadvertent" plagiarism and why analysis of intent is likely not a good way to analyze plagiarism. Few people are going to say: yes, I attempted to represent someone else's work as my own. Poshard certainly did not. Verbatim copying of text not generally known without citation is plagiarism. End of story. The presence of copying is something that is self-evident. After copying is established, the punishment should fit the circumstances.
See
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/09/university-of-virginia-to-change.html
UPDATE. to the Cavalier-->
My first question would be "what intent clause"? The text above notes: --The present definition begins with, “Plagiarism is using someone’s ideas or work without proper or complete acknowledgment.” -- Is there something about intent that follows? Generally, plagiarism is copying without attribution, period. See the definition from Indiana University, below. In the SIU matter with Poshard, there was no denial that the copying was plagiarism, but there was a re-labeling to create a category of inadvertent plagiarism. Inadvertent plagiarism is still plagiarism.
In the world of copyright (which is NOT co-extensive with plagiarism), intent is NOT an element. Access is an element, but can be inferred. Why do you think intent is an element of plagiarism? The presence of copying is something that is self-evident. Once the copying is demonstrated, then you analyze the circumstances. UVa failed miserably in handling the Routman affair. That is what UVa needs to look into.
From Indiana University: Plagiarism is defined as presenting someone else’s work, including the work of other
students, as one’s own. Any ideas or materials taken from another source for either
written or oral use must be fully acknowledged, unless the information is common
knowledge.
UPDATE. to the Cavalier-->
I ask the question again: what intent clause? The UVa honor code currently defines plagiarism: --Plagiarism is using someone else's ideas or work without proper or complete acknowledgment. Plagiarism encompasses many things, and is by far the most common manifestation of academic fraud. For example, copying a passage straight from a book into a paper without quoting or explicitly citing the source is blatant plagiarism. In addition, completely rewording someone else's work or ideas and using it as one's own is also plagiarism. It is very important that students properly acknowledge all ideas, work and even distinctive wording that are not their own.-- This is not significantly different from the University of Indiana definition and doesn't mention intent. Changing the definition of plagiarism, in the manner reported by the Cavalier, doesn't address intent AND separately begins a departure from the definition of other schools, such as that of Indiana, with no identified advantage. Separately, there is no such thing as a federal "crime" of plagiarism; there is copyright infringement, which does not require a showing of intent. Intent is irrelevant to a showing of copying, whether as plagiarism or as copyright infringement. Copying is something that one DOES know when one sees it. Certainly, the circumstances would dictate the form of penalty. If you see "degrees" of threat to the UVa community, then you should change the form of penalty ["single sanction"}, not the definition of plagiarism. What Alison Routman did in her paper did not constitute a threat to the UVa community, and, under the guidelines given to her for the paper, may not have constituted plagiarism at all. If you think the coverage of the Routman affair was inaccurate, why don't you present some facts, instead of a veiled allusion (illusion?)?
UPDATE. to the Cavalier-->
Although Sam Leven spends much time saying intent IS an element of an Honor Offense, his conclusion on intent is: "Because the Intent Clause is ambiguous in many ways, however, adding intent to the definition of plagiarism would solve multiple problems." The CURRENT UVa definition of plagiarism does NOT include an element of intent. In an upcoming paper on academic plagiarism, researchers survey definitions of plagiarism at universities on four continents, and find that NONE include intent as an element of plagiarism. In dealing with the PUNISHMENT phase AFTER plagiarism is found, intent IS a factor. Because UVa chooses to have only one punishment (expulsion) for an Honor Code violation, UVa would tinker with the definition of the "crime." Apart from the general silliness of this approach against a background where other universities have a fairly uniform definition of plagiarism, the proposed UVa change would foster the concept of "inadvertent plagiarism" as exemplified in the Poshard matter at SIU.
As to the outcome of the Routman case, however ambiguous UVa's Intent Clause may be, Routman was found guilty, meaning there was a finding of intent. Measured against the facts of the Routman case, this finding is difficult to understand, and should cause UVa people concern. Nevertheless, the "Alice in Wonderland" approach of changing the definition of plagiarism is not the answer. [from the book: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’]
As to the "copied" lines of Routman, see also
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/08/routmans-copied-lines-from-wikipedia.html
**Update. 30 Sept 09-->
As to Mr. Weinberger, one might ask how his recollection of the Honor Code applies to the facts of the Routman matter. ["that the actor knew, or should have known, that the Act in question was or could have been considered Lying, Cheating, or Stealing. Ignorance of the scope of the Honor System shall not be considered a defense." ] Alison didn't come forward on the ship because she didn't think what she had done was Lying, Cheating, or Stealing (or something else bad). But she was made to walk the plank, with the UVa folks on the ship punishing her for something that does not appear to be a deliberate dishonest act, or even plagiarism as understood by people outside of UVa. Plagiarism is copying without attribution, as defined by universities on at least four continents, but does not extend to fragmentary copying of well-known facts. If the Honor Code was well applied in the Routman matter, one suspects that UVa would not be working to adjust its particular definition of plagiarism. As to "not dishonest unless the student intended to commit it, " this theme was well-worked in the Poshard matter. As to " density makes one wonder about your sincerity, " if Mr. Weinberger's arguments were better grounded, perhaps he wouldn't feel the need to lead off with an ad hominem attack.
As to Lucas, his writing " I fail to understand Mr. Ebert’s refusal to accept the concept of the honor code requiring both an actus reus and a mens rea " betrays a lack of understanding of what this argument concerns. At least Sam Leven disclosed the issue: “Because the Intent Clause is ambiguous in many ways, however, adding intent to the definition of plagiarism would solve multiple problems.” If UVa is happy with its Honor Code, and its application to Alison Routman, why is it CHANGING the definition of plagiarism to add the word "attempt" to include an intent element in the definition of plagiarism, counter to the definition of universities on four continents? If a respected school like UVa creates an outlier definition, such action will have an impact beyond the confines of Virginia. People outside of UVa do care about what UVa does, especially when it's wrong and is going to adversely influence others.
***from the Cavalier editorial, Trying Times, 29 Sept 09 :
The vague intent clause, for example, has been the source of several controversies in recent years.
**to the Cavalier
The Cavalier, on September 29, said basically the same thing as Sam Leven: "The vague intent clause, for example, has been the source of several controversies in recent years," which realization is not reflected in the commentary of Casper or Lucas, who otherwise don't address the Alison Routman matter, wherein there is basically no evidence that Alison intended to do anything bad, but she was convicted anyway.
For those not exposed to criminal law, actus reus and mens rea are terms of art in assessing whether or not a crime has occurred. There is no such thing as a federal crime of plagiarism. [In fact, in the Dastar case, the Supreme Court recognized that the defendant was a plagiarist, but the defendant won the case.] As to copyright infringement and patent infringement, which are generally civil matters, intent is not an element of either, and one does not assess whether the defendant knew or should have known infringement was a violation. Infringement is infringement, no matter what the intent. If one finds infringement (liability), then one addresses the damages.
UVa's problem is that there is one punishment to fit all Honor Code violations. Changing the definition of plagiarism does not solve that problem; it only moves the problem somewhere else. It is a bad idea.
***UPDATE.
The concept of "one penalty for all offenses" was firmly rejected in the case of Zachary Christie (age 6) of Newark, Delaware.
Initially, Zachary got a 45 day suspension for bringing to school a camping utensil which included a knife. The New York Times wrote of the (now changed) policy:
The case prompted an angry reaction from parents because several other students hade been expelled or suspended in the past several years for similar offenses, including an elementary school student who was expelled for a year after she took a birthday cake to school, along with a knife to cut it.
The only reason the board relented was the adverse publicity. The NYT noted: “We are doing this because we got egg on our face, but it doesn’t address the underlying issues with zero-tolerance rules,” said John M. Young.
Whether at the Christina School or at UVa, the problem is the inflexible penalty. Changing definitions of the "crime" does not resolve the problem of a draconian penalty.
See also Delaware 1st grader has 45-day suspension lifted
****As one piece of irony,
"Semester at Sea" teaches the Scaffold Plank Incident
***Update on 25 Sept 2010-->
For the sake of history, here is some discussion from September 2009:
Although Sam Leven spends much time saying intent IS an element of an Honor Offense, his conclusion on intent is: "Because the Intent Clause is ambiguous in many ways, however, adding intent to the definition of plagiarism would solve multiple problems." The CURRENT UVa definition of plagiarism does NOT include an element of intent. In an upcoming paper on academic plagiarism, researchers survey definitions of plagiarism at universities on four continents, and find that NONE include intent as an element of plagiarism. In dealing with the PUNISHMENT phase AFTER plagiarism is found, intent IS a factor. Because UVa chooses to have only one punishment (expulsion) for an Honor Code violation, UVa would tinker with the definition of the "crime." Apart from the general silliness of this approach against a background where other universities have a fairly uniform definition of plagiarism, the proposed UVa change would foster the concept of "inadvertent plagiarism" as exemplified in the Poshard matter at SIU.
from http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/09/university-of-virginia-to-change.html
A question in 2010 would simply be: how would the Routman matter come out under the proposed changes?
The Cavalier Daily noted:
The present definition begins with, “Plagiarism is using someone’s ideas or work without proper or complete acknowledgment.”
To emphasize the question of whether the writer is attempting to pass someone else’s ideas off as his own, Litchford proposed the sentence:
“Plagiarism is attempting to represent someone else’s ideas or work as your own original ideas or work.”
This change seems to be motivated, at least in part, by the Routman incident. [Although there were problems with the way UVa handled the Routman incident that go beyond a mere definition of plagiarism.]
JJ Litchford, vice chair for community relations noted: “To center only on citation is grossly ineffective and insufficient to deal with plagiarism.”
The PROBLEM with this approach is that it goes from an "objective" criterion (citation: yes or no?) to a "subjective" criterion: the presence of "intent" inherent in the word "attempting." The Poshard case at SIU illustrated the concept of "inadvertent" plagiarism and why that is likely not a good way to analyze plagiarism. Few people are going to say: yes, I attempted to represent someone else's work as my own. Poshard certainly did not. Verbatim copying of text not generally known without citation is plagiarism. End of story. The punishment should fit the circumstances.
The Cavalier article also noted: Litchford also chose to add a sentence about paraphrasing in the new definition of plagiarism.
The UVirginia approach is like putting a thumb in the hole in the leaking dyke of the "cut and paste" culture. When the Harvard Business Review has an article saying "plagiarize with pride," the train has left the station.
On the Routman incident:
Allison Routman, Frank Zappa, and plagiarism
Routman's copied lines from wikipedia: enough to walk the plank?
to the Cavalier-->
The PROBLEM with this approach is that it goes from an "objective" criterion (citation: yes or no?) to a "subjective" criterion: the presence of "intent" inherent in the word "attempting." The Poshard case at SIU illustrated the concept of "inadvertent" plagiarism and why analysis of intent is likely not a good way to analyze plagiarism. Few people are going to say: yes, I attempted to represent someone else's work as my own. Poshard certainly did not. Verbatim copying of text not generally known without citation is plagiarism. End of story. The presence of copying is something that is self-evident. After copying is established, the punishment should fit the circumstances.
See
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/09/university-of-virginia-to-change.html
UPDATE. to the Cavalier-->
My first question would be "what intent clause"? The text above notes: --The present definition begins with, “Plagiarism is using someone’s ideas or work without proper or complete acknowledgment.” -- Is there something about intent that follows? Generally, plagiarism is copying without attribution, period. See the definition from Indiana University, below. In the SIU matter with Poshard, there was no denial that the copying was plagiarism, but there was a re-labeling to create a category of inadvertent plagiarism. Inadvertent plagiarism is still plagiarism.
In the world of copyright (which is NOT co-extensive with plagiarism), intent is NOT an element. Access is an element, but can be inferred. Why do you think intent is an element of plagiarism? The presence of copying is something that is self-evident. Once the copying is demonstrated, then you analyze the circumstances. UVa failed miserably in handling the Routman affair. That is what UVa needs to look into.
From Indiana University: Plagiarism is defined as presenting someone else’s work, including the work of other
students, as one’s own. Any ideas or materials taken from another source for either
written or oral use must be fully acknowledged, unless the information is common
knowledge.
UPDATE. to the Cavalier-->
I ask the question again: what intent clause? The UVa honor code currently defines plagiarism: --Plagiarism is using someone else's ideas or work without proper or complete acknowledgment. Plagiarism encompasses many things, and is by far the most common manifestation of academic fraud. For example, copying a passage straight from a book into a paper without quoting or explicitly citing the source is blatant plagiarism. In addition, completely rewording someone else's work or ideas and using it as one's own is also plagiarism. It is very important that students properly acknowledge all ideas, work and even distinctive wording that are not their own.-- This is not significantly different from the University of Indiana definition and doesn't mention intent. Changing the definition of plagiarism, in the manner reported by the Cavalier, doesn't address intent AND separately begins a departure from the definition of other schools, such as that of Indiana, with no identified advantage. Separately, there is no such thing as a federal "crime" of plagiarism; there is copyright infringement, which does not require a showing of intent. Intent is irrelevant to a showing of copying, whether as plagiarism or as copyright infringement. Copying is something that one DOES know when one sees it. Certainly, the circumstances would dictate the form of penalty. If you see "degrees" of threat to the UVa community, then you should change the form of penalty ["single sanction"}, not the definition of plagiarism. What Alison Routman did in her paper did not constitute a threat to the UVa community, and, under the guidelines given to her for the paper, may not have constituted plagiarism at all. If you think the coverage of the Routman affair was inaccurate, why don't you present some facts, instead of a veiled allusion (illusion?)?
UPDATE. to the Cavalier-->
Although Sam Leven spends much time saying intent IS an element of an Honor Offense, his conclusion on intent is: "Because the Intent Clause is ambiguous in many ways, however, adding intent to the definition of plagiarism would solve multiple problems." The CURRENT UVa definition of plagiarism does NOT include an element of intent. In an upcoming paper on academic plagiarism, researchers survey definitions of plagiarism at universities on four continents, and find that NONE include intent as an element of plagiarism. In dealing with the PUNISHMENT phase AFTER plagiarism is found, intent IS a factor. Because UVa chooses to have only one punishment (expulsion) for an Honor Code violation, UVa would tinker with the definition of the "crime." Apart from the general silliness of this approach against a background where other universities have a fairly uniform definition of plagiarism, the proposed UVa change would foster the concept of "inadvertent plagiarism" as exemplified in the Poshard matter at SIU.
As to the outcome of the Routman case, however ambiguous UVa's Intent Clause may be, Routman was found guilty, meaning there was a finding of intent. Measured against the facts of the Routman case, this finding is difficult to understand, and should cause UVa people concern. Nevertheless, the "Alice in Wonderland" approach of changing the definition of plagiarism is not the answer. [from the book: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’]
As to the "copied" lines of Routman, see also
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/08/routmans-copied-lines-from-wikipedia.html
**Update. 30 Sept 09-->
As to Mr. Weinberger, one might ask how his recollection of the Honor Code applies to the facts of the Routman matter. ["that the actor knew, or should have known, that the Act in question was or could have been considered Lying, Cheating, or Stealing. Ignorance of the scope of the Honor System shall not be considered a defense." ] Alison didn't come forward on the ship because she didn't think what she had done was Lying, Cheating, or Stealing (or something else bad). But she was made to walk the plank, with the UVa folks on the ship punishing her for something that does not appear to be a deliberate dishonest act, or even plagiarism as understood by people outside of UVa. Plagiarism is copying without attribution, as defined by universities on at least four continents, but does not extend to fragmentary copying of well-known facts. If the Honor Code was well applied in the Routman matter, one suspects that UVa would not be working to adjust its particular definition of plagiarism. As to "not dishonest unless the student intended to commit it, " this theme was well-worked in the Poshard matter. As to " density makes one wonder about your sincerity, " if Mr. Weinberger's arguments were better grounded, perhaps he wouldn't feel the need to lead off with an ad hominem attack.
As to Lucas, his writing " I fail to understand Mr. Ebert’s refusal to accept the concept of the honor code requiring both an actus reus and a mens rea " betrays a lack of understanding of what this argument concerns. At least Sam Leven disclosed the issue: “Because the Intent Clause is ambiguous in many ways, however, adding intent to the definition of plagiarism would solve multiple problems.” If UVa is happy with its Honor Code, and its application to Alison Routman, why is it CHANGING the definition of plagiarism to add the word "attempt" to include an intent element in the definition of plagiarism, counter to the definition of universities on four continents? If a respected school like UVa creates an outlier definition, such action will have an impact beyond the confines of Virginia. People outside of UVa do care about what UVa does, especially when it's wrong and is going to adversely influence others.
***from the Cavalier editorial, Trying Times, 29 Sept 09 :
The vague intent clause, for example, has been the source of several controversies in recent years.
**to the Cavalier
The Cavalier, on September 29, said basically the same thing as Sam Leven: "The vague intent clause, for example, has been the source of several controversies in recent years," which realization is not reflected in the commentary of Casper or Lucas, who otherwise don't address the Alison Routman matter, wherein there is basically no evidence that Alison intended to do anything bad, but she was convicted anyway.
For those not exposed to criminal law, actus reus and mens rea are terms of art in assessing whether or not a crime has occurred. There is no such thing as a federal crime of plagiarism. [In fact, in the Dastar case, the Supreme Court recognized that the defendant was a plagiarist, but the defendant won the case.] As to copyright infringement and patent infringement, which are generally civil matters, intent is not an element of either, and one does not assess whether the defendant knew or should have known infringement was a violation. Infringement is infringement, no matter what the intent. If one finds infringement (liability), then one addresses the damages.
UVa's problem is that there is one punishment to fit all Honor Code violations. Changing the definition of plagiarism does not solve that problem; it only moves the problem somewhere else. It is a bad idea.
***UPDATE.
The concept of "one penalty for all offenses" was firmly rejected in the case of Zachary Christie (age 6) of Newark, Delaware.
Initially, Zachary got a 45 day suspension for bringing to school a camping utensil which included a knife. The New York Times wrote of the (now changed) policy:
The case prompted an angry reaction from parents because several other students hade been expelled or suspended in the past several years for similar offenses, including an elementary school student who was expelled for a year after she took a birthday cake to school, along with a knife to cut it.
The only reason the board relented was the adverse publicity. The NYT noted: “We are doing this because we got egg on our face, but it doesn’t address the underlying issues with zero-tolerance rules,” said John M. Young.
Whether at the Christina School or at UVa, the problem is the inflexible penalty. Changing definitions of the "crime" does not resolve the problem of a draconian penalty.
See also Delaware 1st grader has 45-day suspension lifted
****As one piece of irony,
"Semester at Sea" teaches the Scaffold Plank Incident
***Update on 25 Sept 2010-->
For the sake of history, here is some discussion from September 2009:
Although Sam Leven spends much time saying intent IS an element of an Honor Offense, his conclusion on intent is: "Because the Intent Clause is ambiguous in many ways, however, adding intent to the definition of plagiarism would solve multiple problems." The CURRENT UVa definition of plagiarism does NOT include an element of intent. In an upcoming paper on academic plagiarism, researchers survey definitions of plagiarism at universities on four continents, and find that NONE include intent as an element of plagiarism. In dealing with the PUNISHMENT phase AFTER plagiarism is found, intent IS a factor. Because UVa chooses to have only one punishment (expulsion) for an Honor Code violation, UVa would tinker with the definition of the "crime." Apart from the general silliness of this approach against a background where other universities have a fairly uniform definition of plagiarism, the proposed UVa change would foster the concept of "inadvertent plagiarism" as exemplified in the Poshard matter at SIU.
from http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/09/university-of-virginia-to-change.html
A question in 2010 would simply be: how would the Routman matter come out under the proposed changes?
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home