Plagerism.

Why is it wrong to copy someones work without giving credit?

many things, what's your point?

Are you capable of answering the question?

Are you capable of answering the question?

Yes, most likely. Point plz...

Ok so answer it.

Well, to start with the grades you are awarded for the work you submit is meant to reflect the quality and effort of that work. Submitting someone else's work as your own undermines both of those criteria. Submitting your own work for two independent assignments undermines the marking purpose that determines effort, as well as limits the legitimacy of the degree or certificate achieved because less has ultimately been learned by doing one project instead of two.

Well, to start with the grades you are awarded for the work you submit is meant to reflect the quality and effort of that work. Submitting someone else's work as your own undermines both of those criteria. Submitting your own work for two independent assignments undermines the marking purpose that determines effort, as well as limits the legitimacy of the degree or certificate achieved because less has ultimately been learned by doing one project instead of two.

Like I said, if the assignment and subject matter overlap there is no reason not to do it.

good argument and thanks for playing

You haven't come up with anything better.

You haven't come up with anything better.

ahem...

Well, to start with the grades you are awarded for the work you submit is meant to reflect the quality and effort of that work. Submitting someone else's work as your own undermines both of those criteria. Submitting your own work for two independent assignments undermines the marking purpose that determines effort, as well as limits the legitimacy of the degree or certificate achieved because less has ultimately been learned by doing one project instead of two.

I don't think you understand an argument or debate...

The keyword there is learned. Of course you can always turn in a paper that you wrote for an entirely different subject, but you probably won't get a good grade on it.

see DADT topic for my response.

That doesn't get you off the hook.

Self-plagerism wasn't allowed in my University therefore its wrong.

It is.

I was stating that in general if you agree to a set of rules it is unethical to break said rules.

Even if the rules are unethical? Would sticking to a promise of being unethical, be ethical?

Btw, I would consider it unethical to force a student to labor through a unnecessary rewrite of a 15 page report, simply because it could be used in parallel elsewhere.

Are you referring to British public schools or state schools?

Does it change your answer? I'll say... state schools.

You're discounting the selection element of grades. Not only do they serve as a measure of comprehension, but also as a selection mechanism based upon effort. In the sense of this argument, the grades are not seen as an end in themselves, but as a means toward sorting students. Reusing papers demonstrates a lack of effort.

But grades reflecting effort for an assignment are not meant to examine nor account for the effort put forth for other classes. The effort dilemma comes from looking at cumulative effort and deciding it can only be attributed to a single class. (Not from judging the effort of the assignment handed in.)

Also, the dismissal of effort assumes the reuse of one paper and not similar separate papers. Two different reports, written different times, in completely different sentences, still qualify as self-plagiarism. If writing two papers meet the effort requirement, would you then consider it morally permissible form of self-plagiarism?

Quote from: Benocrates on December 23, 2010, 05:59:18 PM

You're discounting the selection element of grades. Not only do they serve as a measure of comprehension, but also as a selection mechanism based upon effort. In the sense of this argument, the grades are not seen as an end in themselves, but as a means toward sorting students. Reusing papers demonstrates a lack of effort.

But grades reflecting effort for an assignment are not meant to examine nor account for the effort put forth for other classes. The effort dilemma comes from looking at cumulative effort and deciding it can only be attributed to a single class. (Not from judging the effort of the assignment handed in.)

Also, the dismissal of effort assumes the reuse of one paper and not similar separate papers. Two different reports, written different times, in completely different sentences, still qualify as self-plagiarism. If writing two papers meet the effort requirement, would you then consider it morally permissible form of self-plagiarism?

I don't quite understand your point in the first paragraph, so I'll need a re-statement on that. As for the second paragraph, I'm not arguing for effort in the sense of physical-writing, but rather intellectual effort. If you simply re-word your previous ideas you are not demonstrating the effort to create new ideas.

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on December 28, 2010, 03:18:53 AM

Quote from: Benocrates on December 23, 2010, 05:59:18 PM

You're discounting the selection element of grades. Not only do they serve as a measure of comprehension, but also as a selection mechanism based upon effort. In the sense of this argument, the grades are not seen as an end in themselves, but as a means toward sorting students. Reusing papers demonstrates a lack of effort.

But grades reflecting effort for an assignment are not meant to examine nor account for the effort put forth for other classes. The effort dilemma comes from looking at cumulative effort and deciding it can only be attributed to a single class. (Not from judging the effort of the assignment handed in.)

Also, the dismissal of effort assumes the reuse of one paper and not similar separate papers. Two different reports, written different times, in completely different sentences, still qualify as self-plagiarism. If writing two papers meet the effort requirement, would you then consider it morally permissible form of self-plagiarism?

I don't quite understand your point in the first paragraph, so I'll need a re-statement on that. As for the second paragraph, I'm not arguing for effort in the sense of physical-writing, but rather intellectual effort. If you simply re-word your previous ideas you are not demonstrating the effort to create new ideas.

If you plagarized yourself in the real world (gave the same report/presentation to 2 of your bosses who requested the same or similar information) would not be penalized at all.  Why should academia work counter to the rest of life?

I don't quite understand your point in the first paragraph, so I'll need a re-statement on that. As for the second paragraph, I'm not arguing for effort in the sense of physical-writing, but rather intellectual effort. If you simply re-word your previous ideas you are not demonstrating the effort to create new ideas.

Reword:
Grades are intended to reflect effort for an assignment, but it doesn't/shouldn't have any relation to effort in other classes. Teachers don't have any reason to concern themselves with student effort for other classes. Their focus is the effort of the essay they receive. The only way to conclude that effort is lacking, comes from a global view of total effort for all classes, as compared to total assignments for all classes.

Also, if your physics and math teacher ask you to learn and report on the exact same thing, why is additional 'learning effort' necessary?

I was drinking too much tonight and it got me thinking.  If a student was able to create a program that had the ability to learn course material (perhaps by scanning the internet) and generate unique papers (after inputting the requirements), which the student then turned in for a grade, would this be considered plagiarism? Technically he/she created the program that generated the paper, it is their own work.

First off, that would mean that the student wouldn't learn what was assigned.

Technically he/she created the program that generated the paper, it is their own work.

Interesting, but I'd be extremely hesitant to make that connection.
It's essentially arguing credit for something, from its cause.

If you fathered a kid who later became a famous author, should you get credit for his books?

Quote from: Benocrates on December 28, 2010, 12:38:44 PM

I don't quite understand your point in the first paragraph, so I'll need a re-statement on that. As for the second paragraph, I'm not arguing for effort in the sense of physical-writing, but rather intellectual effort. If you simply re-word your previous ideas you are not demonstrating the effort to create new ideas.

Reword:
Grades are intended to reflect effort for an assignment, but it doesn't/shouldn't have any relation to effort in other classes. Teachers don't have any reason to concern themselves with student effort for other classes. Their focus is the effort of the essay they receive. The only way to conclude that effort is lacking, comes from a global view of total effort for all classes, as compared to total assignments for all classes.

Also, if your physics and math teacher ask you to learn and report on the exact same thing, why is additional 'learning effort' necessary?

This is a good point.  In both my math and physics courses I was asked to derive the wave function of the electron.  I had not reworked my derivation, but merely handed in the same work for both classes.  Should I have redone all the work?

First off, that would mean that the student wouldn't learn what was assigned.

Point taken, I still would not call it plagiarism, but it would defeat the purpose of taking a class.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on December 29, 2010, 09:52:22 PM

Technically he/she created the program that generated the paper, it is their own work.

Interesting, but I'd be extremely hesitant to make that connection.
It's essentially arguing credit for something, from its cause.

If you fathered a kid who later became a famous author, should you get credit for his books?

Your comparing apples and oranges.  Your offspring can not be considered your property (at least after they are adults).  Your inventions are considered your property, and you may benefit from them.  I suppose if you invented something that then created some sort of intellectual property, such as a book or a work of art, that property and that idea would belong to the inventor.  Though I don't think anything like this has happened yet, there may come a time in the near future where we will have to explore the ethics of asserting ownership in this manner.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on December 30, 2010, 08:03:30 PM

It's essentially arguing credit for something, from its cause.

If you fathered a kid who later became a famous author, should you get credit for his books?

Your comparing apples and oranges.  Your offspring can not be considered your property (at least after they are adults).  Your inventions are considered your property, and you may benefit from them.  I suppose if you invented something that then created some sort of intellectual property, such as a book or a work of art, that property and that idea would belong to the inventor.  Though I don't think anything like this has happened yet, there may come a time in the near future where we will have to explore the ethics of asserting ownership in this manner.

I am aware that my analogy differs with respect to sentience, but I'm inclined to view a natural extension of ownership and 'artistic credit' quite differently.

Perhaps its because I don't see sentience as anything special when it comes to recognizing credit for a result. Credit is a largely arbitrary distinction with multiple meanings that serves a practical role in rules, respect, and other human affairs. But consider an example of the inventor of the creative robot (as opposed to the father of the novelist). If consciousness is a continuum, how conscious does a robot have to be before it gets credit for its paintings or books? Just something to consider. 

I wasn't really assuming that the creative robot would be sentient at all.  I was more envisioning something like the following:  A computer program that searches the web for historical facts, then using a database of characters, plot ideas, etc.  Creates a novel based on a particular time period.  Mostly it will create complete random crap, but one day, out of pure chance, it generates a book that is a best seller.  It shits out Gone with the Wind, for example.  Something like that would not have to be sentient would it?

I wasn't really assuming that the creative robot would be sentient at all.  I was more envisioning something like the following:  A computer program that searches the web for historical facts, then using a database of characters, plot ideas, etc.  Creates a novel based on a particular time period.  Mostly it will create complete random crap, but one day, out of pure chance, it generates a book that is a best seller.  It shits out Gone with the Wind, for example.  Something like that would not have to be sentient would it?

Not at all. I was adapting my analogy of fathering a child to better relate to your non sentient program.

I'm simply offering the perspective that sentience doesn't intrinsically deserve special treatment when people assign others credit. Credit generally gets assigned to the closest sentient humans involved, instead of the technological mechanisms most directly responsible. Since I see both humans and programs as machines/programs, having credit default to the organic contributors isn't inherently meaningful. And for that matter, neither is the reversed scenario.

Quote from: Benocrates on December 28, 2010, 12:38:44 PM

I don't quite understand your point in the first paragraph, so I'll need a re-statement on that. As for the second paragraph, I'm not arguing for effort in the sense of physical-writing, but rather intellectual effort. If you simply re-word your previous ideas you are not demonstrating the effort to create new ideas.

Reword:
Grades are intended to reflect effort for an assignment, but it doesn't/shouldn't have any relation to effort in other classes. Teachers don't have any reason to concern themselves with student effort for other classes. Their focus is the effort of the essay they receive. The only way to conclude that effort is lacking, comes from a global view of total effort for all classes, as compared to total assignments for all classes.

Also, if your physics and math teacher ask you to learn and report on the exact same thing, why is additional 'learning effort' necessary?

In the effort sense I'm arguing that a teacher concerns themselves with a student's effort in their own class, and when a student uses an old one of their essays they are not demonstrating any effort in the second class. To obtain a legitimate grade in a class there must be an effort put in to each assignment that can be assessed. If you can do the same amount of effort for two assignments, you're being awarded twice as much credit as you deserve.
 
As for the math/physics issue, the only way an assignment can be used for two classes is if there are reasonably vague assignment criteria in both classes. I suppose if two independent teachers gave the exact same assignment there would be some kind of ground to argue, but I would think that almost never happens. Even then I would argue that the ethical thing to do would be to inform both teachers of the mistake. But in most, if not all, situations a double use essay topic would come from a list of broad topics or themes. In that case there is an active decision to use the same topic in both classes and get twice as much return on their effort than the others.

As for the argument about real world and academia, we have to examine the purposes and rationale of 'real world' jobs and academic assignments. In the 'real world' the purpose of assignments are, presumably, results. Results in the sense of achieving the ends of whatever company they work for. This could be profit, in the sense of a business, or safety, in the sense of law enforcement, etc. In academia the purpose is education and evaluation. I think you can see the difference between the two.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on December 31, 2010, 12:04:02 AM

I wasn't really assuming that the creative robot would be sentient at all.  I was more envisioning something like the following:  A computer program that searches the web for historical facts, then using a database of characters, plot ideas, etc.  Creates a novel based on a particular time period.  Mostly it will create complete random crap, but one day, out of pure chance, it generates a book that is a best seller.  It shits out Gone with the Wind, for example.  Something like that would not have to be sentient would it?

Not at all. I was adapting my analogy of fathering a child to better relate to your non sentient program.

I'm simply offering the perspective that sentience doesn't intrinsically deserve special treatment when people assign others credit. Credit generally gets assigned to the closest sentient humans involved, instead of the technological mechanisms most directly responsible. Since I see both humans and programs as machines/programs, having credit default to the organic contributors isn't inherently meaningful. And for that matter, neither is the reversed scenario.

Where would you like to see credit be given that it's currently not? I would think that the ability to chose and create in humans give them the default credit, not simply their organic nature.

In the effort sense I'm arguing that a teacher concerns themselves with a student's effort in their own class, and when a student uses an old one of their essays they are not demonstrating any effort in the second class. To obtain a legitimate grade in a class there must be an effort put in to each assignment that can be assessed. If you can do the same amount of effort for two assignments, you're being awarded twice as much credit as you deserve.

The effort of either individual assignment is being fulfilled. In other words, each teacher should be happy with the effort put into the paper they received.

For example, if both of my parents separately asked me to help out and mow the lawn, should I mow the lawn twice? The effort I am putting in is sufficient in the eyes of both my mom and dad with respect to their perspective of what they assigned. It is only my global perspective which acknowledges that total effort doesn't match with the doubled request. Ethically fulfilling a duplicate obligation doesn't have to mean doing it twice over.

As for the math/physics issue, the only way an assignment can be used for two classes is if there are reasonably vague assignment criteria in both classes. I suppose if two independent teachers gave the exact same assignment there would be some kind of ground to argue, but I would think that almost never happens.

I'm assuming the topics are similar enough where you aren't getting deducted points for drifting off topic. The more dissimilar the assignments, the more you have to adapt the papers to their respective topics. And the more work you put into separating the papers into their own topics, the more effort you are applying.

Even then I would argue that the ethical thing to do would be to inform both teachers of the mistake. But in most, if not all, situations a double use essay topic would come from a list of broad topics or themes. In that case there is an active decision to use the same topic in both classes and get twice as much return on their effort than the others.

Can I safely assume you would have no objections to recycling work that wasn't professionally evaluated? Say for instance, you adapt one of your posts here on TFES for a philosophy paper?

As for the argument about real world and academia, we have to examine the purposes and rationale of 'real world' jobs and academic assignments. In the 'real world' the purpose of assignments are, presumably, results. Results in the sense of achieving the ends of whatever company they work for. This could be profit, in the sense of a business, or safety, in the sense of law enforcement, etc. In academia the purpose is education and evaluation. I think you can see the difference between the two.

I believe we are disagreeing about the point of school. I'd say the evaluation is supposed to be an evaluation of the student's 'results'. Advancing their education is the goal (regardless of whether it is sciences or humanities).
I contend that school expects you to learn, demonstrate that knowledge, and sometimes demonstrate the ability to apply that knowledge critically. I see effort as a personal issue not a school issue.

Don't get me wrong; encouraging effort in the classroom is virtually always a good thing, but consider the students that are capable of doing perfect work with less effort. Is it right for them to be punished for not spending more unnecessary time on it? Grading kids on effort would artificially handicap the ones who are the most learned and capable, while rewarding the people who struggle more to learn the same material or produce the same results. Being part of the workforce doesn't account for effort. Do grades serve some non-work related function I'm overlooking?

I'd also say that grades should be as unbiased as possible, and attempting to evaluate the effort of students can be very subjective. If it were up to me, teachers would be blind to whose assignments they were grading. I contend their education and work-quality are the important variables, while effort is consequential to the rest of the world.

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on December 31, 2010, 09:20:32 AM

I'm simply offering the perspective that sentience doesn't intrinsically deserve special treatment when people assign others credit. Credit generally gets assigned to the closest sentient humans involved, instead of the technological mechanisms most directly responsible. Since I see both humans and programs as machines/programs, having credit default to the organic contributors isn't inherently meaningful. And for that matter, neither is the reversed scenario.

Where would you like to see credit be given that it's currently not? I would think that the ability to chose and create in humans give them the default credit, not simply their organic nature.

I would think that as well. If human inventions (be they programs or androids) can actually "chose and create" to the same degree as the humans who made them, why give credit for their creations to the humans?

To answer your question, I would be inclined to give credit to those who are most directly responsible, and/or perhaps divide the credit by their measure of influence over the result.

The effort of either individual assignment is being fulfilled. In other words, each teacher should be happy with the effort put into the paper they received.

For example, if both of my parents separately asked me to help out and mow the lawn, should I mow the lawn twice? The effort I am putting in is sufficient in the eyes of both my mom and dad with respect to their perspective of what they assigned. It is only my global perspective which acknowledges that total effort doesn't match with the doubled request. Ethically fulfilling a duplicate obligation doesn't have to mean doing it twice over.

Again, you're confusing the ends of tasks such as mowing the lawn with academic assignments. The goal of mowing the lawn is to have the lawn shorter than before. If both of your parents only wanted the lawn mowed, you would be right. It would be silly to mow it twice. But, if your parents, for example, wanted to punish you for fucking the dog on the front porch, and were using chores around the house, it would be unethical to not tell them that you've already done it. Can you see the difference here when the goal is changed? The first goal was to have the lawn mowed, the second was to punish you through labour. 

Teachers in particular classes are not viewing their students only through the lens of their own class, but also through a global perspective. I don't know why you are choosing to view this through each teacher's perspective. A university or college is not merely a collection of independant teachers and classes, but rather an institution that employes a series of teachers and creates a series of classes. Remember, when a student is found cheating, the issue is reported to the dean and is handled on an institutional basis, not the individual class. The intent of a degree is to have students fully complete each of their required classes, and be awarded an independant grade for each that will culminate in a degree awarded by the institution. I suppose if a degree was not from one institution, but rather would show a collection of classes, you miiiight have a leg to stand on. Even then, I have my doubts.

Can I safely assume you would have no objections to recycling work that wasn't professionally evaluated? Say for instance, you adapt one of your posts here on TFES for a philosophy paper?

Yes, I have no objection to this and in fact have done it myself. However, the work I did here was created in parallel with the assignment it was used for, and merely acted as an interactive note page. I was able to sound board some ideas and arguments which I could then edit and submit for grades.

I believe we are disagreeing about the point of school. I'd say the evaluation is supposed to be an evaluation of the student's 'results'. Advancing their education is the goal (regardless of whether it is sciences or humanities).
I contend that school expects you to learn, demonstrate that knowledge, and sometimes demonstrate the ability to apply that knowledge critically. I see effort as a personal issue not a school issue.

Don't get me wrong; encouraging effort in the classroom is virtually always a good thing, but consider the students that are capable of doing perfect work with less effort. Is it right for them to be punished for not spending more unnecessary time on it? Grading kids on effort would artificially handicap the ones who are the most learned and capable, while rewarding the people who struggle more to learn the same material or produce the same results. Being part of the workforce doesn't account for effort. Do grades serve some non-work related function I'm overlooking?

I'd also say that grades should be as unbiased as possible, and attempting to evaluate the effort of students can be very subjective. If it were up to me, teachers would be blind to whose assignments they were grading. I contend their education and work-quality are the important variables, while effort is consequential to the rest of the world.

Nowhere have I argued that effort should be used as a grading criteria, beyond the fact that effort was demonstrated. Additionally, as for the purpose of post-secondary education, you are simply incorrect. I don't know if you are in enrolled in a post-secondary institution or not, but I can tell you that one of the key purposes is to demonstrate the creation of new knowledge. This doesn't simply mean discovering new facts or cures for things, etc., but rather to demonstrate an independent analysis of whatever is being studied. In high-school, for example, the primary criteria is the learning of established knowledge. In university the goal is to have a student analyze a situation, phenomena, etc., and produce unique thought on it. The key there is unique, in that it was created by the individual receiving the grade.

using the example of the genius that needs to put in virtually no effort, consider the following. Imagine being a grade school teacher and discovering one of your students is stunningly brilliant and is flying through the work without any effort or challenge. Would you simply be satisfied that they're completing all the assignments, or would you suggest they be moved up a grade or more? This happens all the time, where we see children as young as 15 achieving a university degree. We do this because the purpose of education is not simply to complete assignments, but to create and discover knowledge.

And of course the goal of grading is to be unbiased, but that doesn't mean blind. The bottom line point is that each class requires an independent piece of work that demonstrates the goal of the class: learning and creation of knowledge. Copying an online article or another student's work is obvious plagiarism. Why? Because it demonstrates that the student did not create a personal and independent piece of work. Submitting two identical assignments to two independent classes also fulfils the criteria that made the classic forms of plagiarism unethical. Never forget that the goal of a university assignment is not the same as a 'real world' goal.

I would think that as well. If human inventions (be they programs or androids) can actually "chose and create" to the same degree as the humans who made them, why give credit for their creations to the humans?

To answer your question, I would be inclined to give credit to those who are most directly responsible, and/or perhaps divide the credit by their measure of influence over the result.

I don't see anything here to argue against...though I don't really see the reason for even discussing it. In other words, I don't understand what's supposed to be provocative about it.

As for the argument about real world and academia, we have to examine the purposes and rationale of 'real world' jobs and academic assignments. In the 'real world' the purpose of assignments are, presumably, results. Results in the sense of achieving the ends of whatever company they work for. This could be profit, in the sense of a business, or safety, in the sense of law enforcement, etc. In academia the purpose is education and evaluation. I think you can see the difference between the two.

Certainly your definition on the purpose of academic work depends on the level of education you are currently in, right?