Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

University of Virginia to change definition of plagiarism?

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

Following the ghastly treatment of Alison Routman during the "Semester at Sea" program, the University of Virginia is working on a new definition of plagiarism.

The Cavalier Daily noted:

The present definition begins with, ?Plagiarism is using someone?s ideas or work without proper or complete acknowledgment.?

To emphasize the question of whether the writer is attempting to pass someone else?s ideas off as his own, Litchford proposed the sentence:

?Plagiarism is attempting to represent someone else?s ideas or work as your own original ideas or work.?

This change seems to be motivated, at least in part, by the Routman incident. [Although there were problems with the way UVa handled the Routman incident that go beyond a mere definition of plagiarism.]

JJ Litchford, vice chair for community relations noted: ?To center only on citation is grossly ineffective and insufficient to deal with plagiarism.?

The PROBLEM with this approach is that it goes from an "objective" criterion (citation: yes or no?) to a "subjective" criterion: the presence of "intent" inherent in the word "attempting." The Poshard case at SIU illustrated the concept of "inadvertent" plagiarism and why that is likely not a good way to analyze plagiarism. Few people are going to say: yes, I attempted to represent someone else's work as my own. Poshard certainly did not. Verbatim copying of text not generally known without citation is plagiarism. End of story. The punishment should fit the circumstances.

The Cavalier article also noted: Litchford also chose to add a sentence about paraphrasing in the new definition of plagiarism.

The UVirginia approach is like putting a thumb in the hole in the leaking dyke of the "cut and paste" culture. When the Harvard Business Review has an article saying "plagiarize with pride," the train has left the station.

On the Routman incident:

Allison Routman, Frank Zappa, and plagiarism

Routman's copied lines from wikipedia: enough to walk the plank?

to the Cavalier-->

The PROBLEM with this approach is that it goes from an "objective" criterion (citation: yes or no?) to a "subjective" criterion: the presence of "intent" inherent in the word "attempting." The Poshard case at SIU illustrated the concept of "inadvertent" plagiarism and why analysis of intent is likely not a good way to analyze plagiarism. Few people are going to say: yes, I attempted to represent someone else's work as my own. Poshard certainly did not. Verbatim copying of text not generally known without citation is plagiarism. End of story. The presence of copying is something that is self-evident. After copying is established, the punishment should fit the circumstances.

See
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2009/09/university-of-virginia-to-change.html

Full post as published by IPBiz on September 22, 2009 (boomark / email).