1. As theoretically interesting as Price's discussion about the changing nature of plagiarism based on historical context might be, what practically useful information can we realistically gain from such a discussion? Perhaps I'm giving away my own opinion here, but is it really not enough to just say (in a modern academic setting and into the future) that copying someone else's words or ideas and passing them off as your own is plagiarism?
2. Johnson-Eilola and Selber make an interesting case against the ideal of originality for academic composition, as truly it is really the case that none of our ideas are "originally" our own. Do you think that because of this composition is really nothing more than remixing in an elaborate guise, or do you think there is value in the practice of having students attempt to argue everything with "originality?"
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI had the same feeling reading Price. The definition of plagiarism is too broad, especially nowadays with technology and being able to remix as Lessig was talking about. Throughout my academic life, plagiarism was copying word for word someone else's paper. I think that is only one part of what plagiarism encompasses.