There are two kinds of plagiarism, and Turnitin aims to root out both.
The first kind of plagiarism is from published materials. The original is openly published in some form. The original source might be a book, a newspaper, a television program, CD-Rom, a discussion list posting or a web page. Somewhere, a record exists and it is—at least it was— openly available. The plagiarist found it, and so too might anybody else looking for the same information. In this regard, however, note that Turnitin seeks matches only on the Internet. It does not claim to seek among printed, broadcast or other materials; it searches only the Internet. As more and more students turn to the Internet for their information, this may not, at first glance, be too much of a drawback to the subscribers (Canadian students…, 2001; Lenhart, 2002).
Plagiarism of this first kind is traceable. It might take a long time, but because the material was published it should be possible to find the original. However, even Internet sources can be difficult to track down. Search engines search only a fraction of the Internet. Some search only the World Wide Web. Different search engines find different hits, and no single search engine finds everything (Notess, 2002).
A lot of valuable material is found on what has become known as the Invisible Web. Sherman and Price (2001, p. 57) define the Invisible Web as: “Text pages, files, or other often high-quality authoritative information available via the World Wide Web that general-purpose search engines cannot, due to technical limitations, or will not, due to deliberate choice, add to their indices of Web pages.” This includes material that is openly available on databases that are free to the end-user. Invisible web pages can often be found easily – but not by the general search engines. Unless one can work out which resources were used or replicate the actual search, re-finding the originals may be nigh impossible.
Moreover, many web pages are unstable, here today and gone tomorrow, especially pages published by the mass media. Online journals make their latest pages available, but past issues may be available only to subscribers, or may disappear altogether. Some online journals constantly update their pages. The URL remains but the article vanishes, replaced by another.
Plagiarism of the second kind is from unpublished materials. These could be personal diaries and letters, a friend’s homework, even one’s own work originally written for a different teacher last year. Also included is unpublished material passed along a network or fraternity, from one friend to another, from one year to another. This is the form of plagiarism discovered in a well-publicized case at the University of Virginia in 2001, when more than 120 students were suspected of plagiarizing from the same material over five years. Because unpublished work is not openly available, it may be impossible to track down the original material which has been copied and plagiarized.
On the plagiarism - A simple search brings up a lot of resources that are directed to teachers, students and academic applications. Interesting.
If I say "I don't care how he got it, I'm just glad he did so I could get it", about PFAL, or whatever, I'm missing a big point.
That's like a guy robbing a bank and taking off with bags of dough. You meet him and happen to mention you could really use some money. He gives you a grand, just like that. You don't know where he got it, you're just glad you're getting the grand.
Then you see him on the News, and realize he's a thief.
So - let's leave that example where it is. It's hypothetical, nobody needs to say what they'd do with that grand now that they realize it belongs to the depositors of the bank.
Move it over to say, information you've been given now, that you really needed and believe you benefitted from.
You can't give back information. It's in your brain, right? Put that fork down, leave it alone.
It's like the money - if you've spent it and then you find out where it came from, what to do? (no answer required here, please).
Back to the information - the easiest thing to do, simplest, the least in fact, would be to recognize that it was gotten by wrong, even illegal means.
Next IMO would be to take a second look at what it is - there may be other discrepanies, inconsistencies in it.
Jesus is often seen as kind, forgiving and extremely "easy" on sin, doing wrong stuff. He was in a certain way - He preached and practiced great forgiveness and patience towards others and what they did , right or wrong.
Yet, He also preached an extremely heightened sense of right and wrong, while He was at it. To Jesus, adultery wasn't just about 2:00 am in some bar and hiking off with somebody. He taught that to look at another and lust after them was wrong. The thoughts, the heart, was the ground he surveyed.
I like to think, Jesus looks on the heart. He sees my heart, He knows my real heart like no one else can. He sees the real Me.
What does He see?
While grace in Christ is our currency we do have to look at how we spend it. If He died to release a debt, how do I spend this new found wealth?
My point - Jesus drew the finest of lines in regards to how God views us and our actions, to the point that there's no wiggle room, yet acted on our behalf in light of that.
How much wiggle room do we want to allow? There's more than enough to go around if we want to shoot for the lower levels of the ladder. How high did VPW shoot for when he incorporated and collated all of these other people's materials into his own?
While teaching that man's basic spiritual problem is the "integrity and accuracy of the Word".
Maybe the biggest question to me has the most obvious answer - what did he think he'd lose by not accurately crediting others in specific instances of repetition, those he learned from and whose materials he directly used? Think about it - what's to lose, or to gain, by doing that?
Recommended Posts
another spot
what about the ugly....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i vote for the ugly
is this a poll
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Way Corps.
LCM
HQ.
The Way Tree
The Tithe and ABS
Class stucture
Dying (initiating the Fog years)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Bad things that VPW did?...
...this thread has the potential to set a new record for the number of posts in one thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The Playjerism topic is coming round again. Short refresher -
Whad id it eggsackly? A brief definition.
From anudder site:
Two kinds of plagiarism
There are two kinds of plagiarism, and Turnitin aims to root out both.
The first kind of plagiarism is from published materials. The original is openly published in some form. The original source might be a book, a newspaper, a television program, CD-Rom, a discussion list posting or a web page. Somewhere, a record exists and it is—at least it was— openly available. The plagiarist found it, and so too might anybody else looking for the same information. In this regard, however, note that Turnitin seeks matches only on the Internet. It does not claim to seek among printed, broadcast or other materials; it searches only the Internet. As more and more students turn to the Internet for their information, this may not, at first glance, be too much of a drawback to the subscribers (Canadian students…, 2001; Lenhart, 2002).
Plagiarism of this first kind is traceable. It might take a long time, but because the material was published it should be possible to find the original. However, even Internet sources can be difficult to track down. Search engines search only a fraction of the Internet. Some search only the World Wide Web. Different search engines find different hits, and no single search engine finds everything (Notess, 2002).
A lot of valuable material is found on what has become known as the Invisible Web. Sherman and Price (2001, p. 57) define the Invisible Web as: “Text pages, files, or other often high-quality authoritative information available via the World Wide Web that general-purpose search engines cannot, due to technical limitations, or will not, due to deliberate choice, add to their indices of Web pages.” This includes material that is openly available on databases that are free to the end-user. Invisible web pages can often be found easily – but not by the general search engines. Unless one can work out which resources were used or replicate the actual search, re-finding the originals may be nigh impossible.
Moreover, many web pages are unstable, here today and gone tomorrow, especially pages published by the mass media. Online journals make their latest pages available, but past issues may be available only to subscribers, or may disappear altogether. Some online journals constantly update their pages. The URL remains but the article vanishes, replaced by another.
Plagiarism of the second kind is from unpublished materials. These could be personal diaries and letters, a friend’s homework, even one’s own work originally written for a different teacher last year. Also included is unpublished material passed along a network or fraternity, from one friend to another, from one year to another. This is the form of plagiarism discovered in a well-publicized case at the University of Virginia in 2001, when more than 120 students were suspected of plagiarizing from the same material over five years. Because unpublished work is not openly available, it may be impossible to track down the original material which has been copied and plagiarized.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
TWI
Create TWI
yes i said create
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
On the plagiarism - A simple search brings up a lot of resources that are directed to teachers, students and academic applications. Interesting.
If I say "I don't care how he got it, I'm just glad he did so I could get it", about PFAL, or whatever, I'm missing a big point.
That's like a guy robbing a bank and taking off with bags of dough. You meet him and happen to mention you could really use some money. He gives you a grand, just like that. You don't know where he got it, you're just glad you're getting the grand.
Then you see him on the News, and realize he's a thief.
So - let's leave that example where it is. It's hypothetical, nobody needs to say what they'd do with that grand now that they realize it belongs to the depositors of the bank.
Move it over to say, information you've been given now, that you really needed and believe you benefitted from.
You can't give back information. It's in your brain, right? Put that fork down, leave it alone.
It's like the money - if you've spent it and then you find out where it came from, what to do? (no answer required here, please).
Back to the information - the easiest thing to do, simplest, the least in fact, would be to recognize that it was gotten by wrong, even illegal means.
Next IMO would be to take a second look at what it is - there may be other discrepanies, inconsistencies in it.
Jesus is often seen as kind, forgiving and extremely "easy" on sin, doing wrong stuff. He was in a certain way - He preached and practiced great forgiveness and patience towards others and what they did , right or wrong.
Yet, He also preached an extremely heightened sense of right and wrong, while He was at it. To Jesus, adultery wasn't just about 2:00 am in some bar and hiking off with somebody. He taught that to look at another and lust after them was wrong. The thoughts, the heart, was the ground he surveyed.
I like to think, Jesus looks on the heart. He sees my heart, He knows my real heart like no one else can. He sees the real Me.
What does He see?
While grace in Christ is our currency we do have to look at how we spend it. If He died to release a debt, how do I spend this new found wealth?
My point - Jesus drew the finest of lines in regards to how God views us and our actions, to the point that there's no wiggle room, yet acted on our behalf in light of that.
How much wiggle room do we want to allow? There's more than enough to go around if we want to shoot for the lower levels of the ladder. How high did VPW shoot for when he incorporated and collated all of these other people's materials into his own?
While teaching that man's basic spiritual problem is the "integrity and accuracy of the Word".
Maybe the biggest question to me has the most obvious answer - what did he think he'd lose by not accurately crediting others in specific instances of repetition, those he learned from and whose materials he directly used? Think about it - what's to lose, or to gain, by doing that?
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ohboy i have questions about other things regarding veep and how jesus christ would feel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
GASP!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.