Price states that
the definition of plagiarism is too broad, and each university has a different statement on
what clarifies plagiarism. She says that “such statements do more to shut down
learning than to encourage it.” Does the punishment for plagiarism have to be
so harsh if it can’t be clearly defined?
Eilola/Selber
When we talk about writing and plagiarizing we
speak of taking exact verbiage and using it as our own. When we talk about
photography, graphic design, web pages, and movies or music, it’s assemblage
and creative and look at what this author did differently. Is it because
writing is part of academia, it sets itself up to a higher ideal?
Hi Farah, in response to your first question: I feel that if we as instructors or as academic institutions can't present a clear definition of plagiarism then we can't punish it as harshly. I imagine a murky law that has been broken: the accused is granted the chance to be judged by a jury of their peers and to legal support. Many times court cases have found the presentation of the law to be too unclear and thus the punishment has been lessoned. I feel this a more fair way to approach punishing plagiarism: a chance to justify, explain, and potentially be redeemed.
ReplyDelete