The Politics and Plagiarism

[Charlie Manson]

The answer to these questions seem obvious to me, but are currently highly contended points.

1) Is it plagiarism if the work you are passing off as your own is public domain (such as a wikipedia article)?

2) Should plagiarism be punished if the said plagiarism was committed months or years before the perpetrator was caught, and in that time the plagiarist had ascended to a high position of authority?

[BassRevelation]

1)yep
2)yep

[Danger Bird]

1)yep
2)yep

[Perhaps Crickets]

yes & yes

Plexi, which staff members would like you like expose for plagiarism?

I say we settle this in the community because there's no justice in comforting the wrong doer.

[Alf™]

Yes and yes, imho.

[veggie 3.14]

Yes to both: they're both plagarism unless citation is given for the original creator of the work.

[Akira]

Of course yes to both.
Anyone who says no to the first simply is ignorant to what plagiarism is.

[coheneran]

The answer to these questions seem obvious to me, but are currently highly contended points.

1) Is it plagiarism if the work you are passing off as your own is public domain (such as a wikipedia article)?

2) Should plagiarism be punished if the said plagiarism was committed months or years before the perpetrator was caught, and in that time the plagiarist had ascended to a high position of authority?

Can you add the point that I am contending, please?

3) Plagiarism is a concept that was invented to control information, and is based in greed, not logic or the greater good. There should be no such thing as plagiarism.

[Akira]

Can you add the point that I am contending, please?

3) Plagiarism is a concept that was invented to control information, and is based in greed, not logic or the greater good. There should be no such thing as plagiarism.

So you think I should be able to find a paper on the internet, print it up, put my name on it, and then turn it in as a school assignment?
Plagiarism is based in the logic that information should only be claimed as coming from you if it indeed did come from you.
Do you think it is wrong for people to be able to own land? That is without a doubt based on greed.

[coheneran]

So you think I should be able to find a paper on the internet, print it up, put my name on it, and then turn it in as a school assignment?

No, because then you are claiming that information belongs to you. Nobody has a right to claim ownership of information.

Plagiarism is based in the logic that information should only be claimed as coming from you if it indeed did come from you.

I fail to see the logic in that. That's just one statement followed by another statement.

Do you think it is wrong for people to be able to own land? That is without a doubt based on greed.

As a matter of fact, yes, for similar reasons. Nobody has a right to own land because nobody has a right to give land away, and at some point in history somebody sold/gave land away with no right to do so.

[Akira]

No, because then you are claiming that information belongs to you. Nobody has a right to claim ownership of information.

I really think you don't understand plagiarism. It has nothing to do with owning information. It has to do with taking a specific chain of words and claiming them as your own. "Information" as an abstract concept cannot be plagiarized. A distinction needs to be made between the information and the specific sentences used to convey that information.

I fail to see the logic in that. That's just one statement followed by another statement.

Let me clarify. Information was the incorrect word. I mean specific sentences and paragraphs.

As a matter of fact, yes, for similar reasons. Nobody has a right to own land because nobody has a right to give land away, and at some point in history somebody sold/gave land away with no right to do so.

Why do you have no right? If you have a society, and there are no other people on the land, why can't you divide the land up for the sake of order. And just to mention a point I am afraid you will make, don't get into like settlers in America taking land from Indians, that's a different.

[coheneran]

I really think you don't understand plagiarism. It has nothing to do with owning information. It has to do with taking a specific chain of words and claiming them as your own. "Information" as an abstract concept cannot be plagiarized. A distinction needs to be made between the information and the specific sentences used to convey that information.

OK, but in that case, who cares if somebody put their name on your piece of work? Aren't you happy enough in the knowledge that you wrote that piece yourself?

Why do you have no right? If you have a society, and there are no other people on the land, why can't you divide the land up for the sake of order. And just to mention a point I am afraid you will make, don't get into like settlers in America taking land from Indians, that's a different.

Just because no human beings live on a piece of land does not give other human beings the right to claim ownership of it. "Nature" (if you'll allow me to personify) owns everything in existence, and so far has not given any of it away. If I say I own anything, it is just a simpler way of saying "Don't nick it, I'm using it right now". Factory owners don't use their factories, the workers do. Landlords don't use their properties, the people who rent them do. "Ownership" should be decided according to who's using the land, and who needs the land.

[Akira]

OK, but in that case, who cares if somebody put their name on your piece of work? Aren't you happy enough in the knowledge that you wrote that piece yourself?

But in my mind it is morally wrong to plagiarize.

Just because no human beings live on a piece of land does not give other human beings the right to claim ownership of it. "Nature" (if you'll allow me to personify) owns everything in existence, and so far has not given any of it away. If I say I own anything, it is just a simpler way of saying "Don't nick it, I'm using it right now". Factory owners don't use their factories, the workers do. Landlords don't use their properties, the people who rent them do. "Ownership" should be decided according to who's using the land, and who needs the land.

I am not going to argue this because I think your point is valid enough, but nothing is going to change in the world.

[coheneran]

But in my mind it is morally wrong to plagiarize.

Why is it morally wrong?

I am not going to argue this because I think your point is valid enough, but nothing is going to change in the world.

People say that despite overwhelming proof to the contrary.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Factory owners don't use their factories, the workers do.
Factory owners do "use" factories. They might not actually take part in the process of anufacturing but I don't see how that affects anything.

"Nature" (if you'll allow me to personify) owns everything in existence, and so far has not given any of it away.
nature isnt a person, so no.

If I say I own anything, it is just a simpler way of saying "Don't nick it, I'm using it right now"

but it isn't

"Ownership" should be decided according to who's using the land,
thus anybody can own anything they decide to use

and who needs the land.
who decides what people need?

[lunchforthesky]

This is stupid, shouldnt Dropper be kicked off for "plagarising" Karl Marx.

or all the God types kicked off for plagerising Jesus' opinions.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

This is stupid, shouldnt Dropper be kicked off for "plagarising" Karl Marx.



Dropper draws many ideas from marx; he doesn't pass of Capital or the German Ideology as his own writing

[Dragon_Prince]

1. Yes
2. Yes

[lunchforthesky]

Ha i dont actually think he should be kicked off. but this guy is implying that to share views with something on wikipedia and to express in a similar way, regardless of whether you think that or not should be a bannable which is ridiculous. I might see someone put across a point on a website and think "hey thats a good idea" and then use it in future discussion. There is nothing wrong with that. Every time i mention evolution should i reference Darwin or every time i criticise religion should i also mention to conutless other people who no doubt share my views and have put them in writing.

[Akira]

Ha i dont actually think he should be kicked off. but this guy is implying that to share views with something on wikipedia and to express in a similar way, regardless of whether you think that or not should be a bannable which is ridiculous. I might see someone put across a point on a website and think "hey thats a good idea" and then use it in future discussion. There is nothing wrong with that. Every time i mention evolution should i reference Darwin or every time i criticise religion should i also mention to conutless other people who no doubt share my views and have put them in writing.

Way to make yourself look like a complete idiot by not having the slight clue what plagiarism is.

[coheneran]

Factory owners do "use" factories. They might not actually take part in the process of anufacturing but I don't see how that affects anything.

No, they don't rely on factories to survive, they rely on them to create more personal wealth and thus gain more personal control over more things that don't belong to them, and so over more people who were born to be free. That also answers your final question about who decides when people need things. People need means of production or shelter to survive, and so whoever uses these means gets to "own" them. As for things not need for survival, that's just common sense. I own my diary because I'm using it and is full of my private thoughts and feelings. That's why you can't claim ownership of my diary, or my sandwich (though I'd be glad to share with you), or my mobile phone.

nature isnt a person, so no.

Way to go on being contrary for contrariness' sake. What I was saying about nature is pretty simple, it's up to you to choose to understand it.

but it isn't

How is it not?

thus anybody can own anything they decide to use

Yes, that's it. Keeping in mind what I said above of course.

who decides what people need?

See my reply to your first statement.

[PerpetualBurn]

I hear factories don't need administrators.

I own my diary because I'm using it and is full of my private thoughts and feelings.

I thought your reasoning would imply that you can't own thoughts.

[coheneran]

No, not really.

[PerpetualBurn]

Lol.

[coheneran]

Lol, I replied "Not really" to your comment about factory admins. Damn ninja edits.

I think I said earlier, when I use the term ownership now, about something that "belongs" to me, I mean it in the sense that it's mine since I am the one using it, not in the capitalist sense of ownership. I only use it for lack of a better word.

[PerpetualBurn]

Intellectual property belongs to me. And ideas, Coheneran, are bulletproof.

And the idea that businesses don't need administration is amazing.

[coheneran]

Intellectual property belongs to me. And ideas, Coheneran, are bulletproof.

I guess you could say intellectual property is partly your property. It is shared property. Shared by everyone who wishes to share it. It's part of the Global Commons.

And the idea that businesses don't need administration is amazing.

Not really a new concept though, is it?

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't like the idea that if I finish writing a piece of music it isn't mine. Surely I've made something. I've produced something. Now the extent to which people should be allowed to copy it may be debatable, but to suggest I have no right to it is pretty disturbing.

And businesses need someone to run them.

[coheneran]

I don't like the idea that if I finish writing a piece of music it isn't mine. Surely I've made something. I've produced something. Now the extent to which people should be allowed to copy it may be debatable, but to suggest I have no right to it is pretty disturbing.

What do you mean by "a right to it"?

I didn't mean to suggest it does not belong to you, but to say that you share ownership of it with everyone else in the world. This is all in essence of course, I can't quite see what impact this would have in day-to-day life, barring copyright abolition.

When I make art or write an article, I'm happy enough to have created something. It's something I've created by making an individual sacrifice, for the enjoyment of everyone who sees it. I'm happy to publish it anonymously, though if someone wants to buy me a drink after reading it, I won't refuse.

And businesses need someone to run them.

Yes, the workers. It's been done before and it's being done right now.

[PerpetualBurn]

Because I don't think that a society in which artists starve because they aren't allowed to copyright there work is a good one.

And workers generally know much less about running a company than the people who run companies. And please don't give me your examples of barely successful crappy factories across the world.

[coheneran]

Because I don't think that a society in which artists starve because they aren't allowed to copyright there work is a good one.

Nobody said anything about starving. Communities should support their artists. Besides, most artists find the time to work a normal job and create their art at the same time.

And workers generally know much less about running a company than the people who run companies. And please don't give me your examples of barely successful crappy factories across the world.

Workers always know what's best to keep their factory running consistently and keep themselves and their families fed and clothed. All bosses are concerned with is profit.

And the factories I was gonna use as an example have actually flourished incredibly in the last 6 years (since starting), have raised profits and wages for every worker, have cut down accidents in the factory by 100%, and have donated immeasurable to their local communities, in the form of building various buildings of public importance (all I can remember right now is a free clinic for the community).

[PerpetualBurn]

The best artists are those who dedicate themselves to their art. And the best way to ensure that artists can live off their art is by allowing them to sell it.

And I've seen your factory examples before. You misrepresent them.

[coheneran]

The best artists are those who dedicate themselves to their art. And the best way to ensure that artists can live off their art is by allowing them to sell it.

Who are you, Simon Cowell?

And I've seen your factory examples before. You misrepresent them.

I don't think I do.

[Smokey D]

The whole point about revolutionary theory was that people wouldn't be alienated from the product of their labour not that they'd have to give it to everyone after it was finished. Global commons merely substitutes the bosses for the masses.

[The Digital Pimp]

3) Plagiarism is a concept that was invented to control information, and is based in greed, not logic or the greater good. There should be no such thing as plagiarism.

No, plagiarism is a concept that was invented to maintain academic integrity. It is based on protection of an author's rights, to ensure that their work is not stolen and presented as someone else's. It is not meant to limit or control the flow of information, but only to make sure that information is presented in a way that respects the original author's rights.

Why is it morally wrong?

Because it's stealing somebody else's intellectual property and lying about whose work it is.

Yes, people have different rights to information, but that's not what plagiarism is about. Plagiarism is about people's rights to their own original created work.

[lfantwister]

Workers always know what's best to keep their factory running consistently and keep themselves and their families fed and clothed. All bosses are concerned with is profit.

If the bosses are at all intelligent they'll be concerned with ensuring their workers are fed and clothed--if not, who will work for them? Who will buy the products? Community outreach, as ostensible as it sounds, is a great marketing mechanism. By boosting the buying power of the workers it will generate more economic activity and confidence; community programs--even free clinics where employees are paid--will in effect do the same thing. Not all bosses are bad caricatures with cuban cigars and big bellies.

[italic zero]

If bosses and managers weren't effective at increasing profits they would be fired.

[jaredong]

If the bosses are at all intelligent they'll be concerned with ensuring their workers are fed and clothed--if not, who will work for them? Who will buy the products? Community outreach, as ostensible as it sounds, is a great marketing mechanism. By boosting the buying power of the workers it will generate more economic activity and confidence; community programs--even free clinics where employees are paid--will in effect do the same thing. Not all bosses are bad caricatures with cuban cigars and big bellies.

Its true that a snazzy offices would want to pay they're employee's properly. But if we're talking about the sweatshops manufacturing clothes and toys and nick nacks for 1st world countries, then the workers welfare isnt really a concern is it? Its all quite well d0cumented, unsafe work conditions, long hours for close to nothing wages, forced not to become pregnant, etc etc. The companies are really concerned about any of these people to buy they're products, they're just using the cheap labor.

Ultimately, companies are legally bound to make sure that they can come up with profits to keep they're shareholders happy. They'd only go so far as to help society as it would help them improve they're image of their company. The bosses would be as wrong to give the money away selflessly to charity (if it didnt help they're company) as to have spent the money on a new car for themselves. The bosses might be nice good people, but they are bound to improve profits above all else.

[Smokey D]

Governments can make companies legally bound to consider both profits and workers' welfare. If it only does one half of the equation, something is wrong with the political structure of the country, not the inherent evils of capitalism.