1. In her paper, Price argues for a
context-sensitive understanding of plagiarism. She stresses that a definition
of plagiarism is not stable and it changes across historical time, cultures,
workplaces, and academic disciplines. As an example, she says that an
understanding of the word “original” may be conceived differently among
cultures. This, essentially, complicates the idea of plagiarism as a fixed
concept. In your own experience as a teacher or student or a profession, can
you think of a similar instance that complicated your idea of plagiarism from
that which you were taught?
2. How has your understanding of plagiarism
transformed over the years of writing and/or teaching?
Hey Hera,
ReplyDeleteI mentioned this in my own questions a bit, but my views of plagiarism have been a little complicated in the past by the notion of "common knowledge." At what point do you have to cite something if it is ubiquitous? For instance, "To be or not to be?" do I need to cite this as Shakespeare, or can I move on with the knowledge that most people recognize its origin? And is that fair to the original composer if the more successful and ubiquitous his/her work becomes the more we quote it without mentioning the source.