I suggest that technical communi-cation instructors rethink the teaching of plagiarism, as itoccurs both in the classroom and in textbooks, by 1) incor-porating discussion of legal definitions of authorship and 2)using analyses of workplace scenarios as a pedagogical tool
I wonder if this idea might also be useful for subjects besides technical writing.
hese same technologies are presentedin these examples as inherently dangerous, as causing a“rise” in cases of plagiarism or “making plagiarism tempt-ing.”
There is a trend in pop culture to see technology as a dangerous thing, (e..g. the show Black Mirror) which I feel like is unfair. Technology is neither completely bad or good. It just is.
he notionthat all writing is inherently collaborative, intertextual, andsocial even from the point of invention (
Studying English has definitely taught me that writing is social. My best writing is my best because multiple eyes have scanned it. John Donne says "no man is an island", well neither is an essay.
One basic rule underlies the mechanical steps describedin the rest of this chapter: With the exception of “com-mon knowledge,” you should cite sources for ALL bor-rowed information used in your final document. Thisincludes quotations, paraphrases, and summari
I sometimes struggle with deciding what to cite in a paper. What counts as "common knowledge"? Here is an article talking about common knowledge and what sort of information does not need to be cited: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page342055
patchwriting”
Here is a short article that talks about patchwriting in more detail: https://www.poynter.org/2012/patchwriting-is-more-common-than-plagiarism-just-as-dishonest/188789/ They give an example of patchwriting,however, they are a little bit judgmental about the practice, which this article seems to be saying the opposite: that we should realize that what we consider plagiarism is complicated, especially in technical communications.
This four-factor fair use analysis, however, is oftenonly narrowly interpreted in academic settings. One ex-ample is the adoption of the “Agreement on guidelinesfor classroom copying in not-for-profit educational insti-tutions with respect to books and periodicals” (1976),originated by the Ad Hoc Committee of EducationalInstitutions and Organizations on Copyright Law Revi-sion, the Authors League of America, and the Associationof American Publishers. The agreement suggests limita-tions such as allowing only 10% of a prose work to bereproduced.
It seems arbitrary to set the number at 10 percent.
er or his class,
I like the use of gender-neutral language.
Scenarios
The STC's online magazine Intercom has a column about ethics scenarios in technical communication. They are interesting, but unfortunately you have to be a member to read them.
the fair use clause
Here is an article that goes into more detail about fair use and copyright: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
Unfortunately, cases of plagiarism are on the rise. Oneof the downsides of online texts, such as websites, is theease of plagiarism. Some students have learned tech-niques of “patchwriting,” in which they cut and pastetext from the Internet and then revise it into a docu-ment. This kind of writing is highly vulnerable tocharges of plagiarism, so it should be avoided. (1
I feel like the internet also keeps people from plagiarizing, as all an instructor has to do to check if they got it online is type it into google.