What is plagiarism exactly?

[davidbroad]

Plagiarism is defined as "the act of passing off as one's own work the ideas, writings or website of another". In our quest to post or answer something, we might use many different sources of information - including other websites. When we use that information that we ourselves did not create, it is imperative that we "give credit", or cite, the original source.

Plagiarism does not actually indicate that you cannot quote from others’ work. After all, academic work has to be built on existing knowledge. You are free to quote the work of others to strengthen your influence provided that the quote is correctly recognized and the source is recognized.

The last week i have just completed my essay about plagiarism issues so now i can know about what is plagiarism free essays [spam] and Why Plagiarism Is A Serious Problem?

Thanks

[veritas]

Plagiarism is defined as "the act of passing off as one's own work the ideas, writings or website of another". In our quest to post or answer something, we might use many different sources of information - including other websites. When we use that information that we ourselves did not create, it is imperative that we "give credit", or cite, the original source.

Plagiarism does not actually indicate that you cannot quote from others’ work. After all, academic work has to be built on existing knowledge. You are free to quote the work of others to strengthen your influence provided that the quote is correctly recognized and the source is recognized.

The last week i have just completed my essay about plagiarism issues so now i can know about what is plagiarism free essays [spam] and Why Plagiarism Is A Serious Problem?

Thanks

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Plagiarism is defined as "the act of passing off as one's own work the ideas, writings or website of another". In our quest to post or answer something, we might use many different sources of information - including other websites. When we use that information that we ourselves did not create, it is imperative that we "give credit", or cite, the original source.

Plagiarism does not actually indicate that you cannot quote from others’ work. After all, academic work has to be built on existing knowledge. You are free to quote the work of others to strengthen your influence provided that the quote is correctly recognized and the source is recognized.

The last week i have just completed my essay about plagiarism issues so now i can know about what is plagiarism free essays [spam] and Why Plagiarism Is A Serious Problem?

Thanks

Actually, I think this is spam, now that I've had a chance to examine the link. It's going away.

Jeremy

[veritas]

just read it and think its fine
but you do as you wish

[Dave Mitchell]

Take an example:

You take a mid-close-up picture of a woman's face and torso. You're not the first person to take such a picture, but it's hardly a unique concept either. No plagerism, even though you might have gotten the idea for the picture, from seeing a famous picture in art history. No attribution is needed.

You take a picture of a woman, as above, but her position in the frame, the lighting, the background elements, and her smile, are remarkably similar to that found in the famous Mona Lisa painting. That would require an attribution to avoid being an example of plagiarism. Adding a pair of earrings, would not change this.

You take a picture of a woman, as above, same position in the frame, same background, but the lighting is redder and darker. Half her face is zombified, with her zygomatic arch (cheekbone), completely exposed, her left eye hanging out of the socket, and her lips falling off in a rotting heap. You might have been inspired by the Mona Lisa, but this would be an original work of art, and would not need attribution.

There is a process for "cleaning" up others code, but it's very expensive. Basically, you take a squad of programmers who have absolutely had no contact with the stolen code, and give them a manager who also is "clean". The manager's director will have had contact with the stolen code, and has to be very careful about what he says. The director could say to the manager "find a better way to generate all moves", but he can't say "use rotated bit boards to find all the moves", if the rotated bit boards was the stolen code that was to be "cleaned". The director can dismiss all other ways to generate moves, and tell the manager to have his programmers try again, but he can't mention rotated bit boards, or tell them to look at Crafty's code for details on how to make them - the clean programmers with their manager, have to develop it on their own. They can research for idea's, but not for specific implementations.

You can see how expensive and inefficient it is, but it has been used between competing companies that can't come to any agreement on licensing, and really need the code. Typically, they also have been involved in extensive litigation regarding the code.

In academic circles, the scope of your contribution to the field, should be more defined. If you come up with a new proof of a theorem, based on five different idea's from other researchers, you'd want to list all five, and briefly describe the extent of their contribution, in footnotes at least. Idea's are more important and more protected, in academia. You don't need to make attribution to Pythagoras and his theorem, because it's common knowledge, but you can't claim it as your own. Even if you discovered it completely independently, while living in a cave, as a hermit.

Plagiarism extends to ideas, not your own, which you express as your own, but plagiarism is not unlawful in many instances. You can't protect through patent or copyright, an idea. If someone says, "I invented the wheel", they may be laughed at, but they can't be sued for infringement of copyright or patent. They may be fired from their job at the university over it, however.

[BB+]

In the verdict of the ICGA Board, they mentioned that Rajlich had plagiarised Fruit and Crafty, but the basis of their decision was violation of Rule #2.

[...] Vasik Rajlich is guilty of plagiarizing the programs Crafty and Fruit, and has violated the ICGA’s tournament rules with respect to the World Computer Chess Championships in the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Specifically, Vasik Rajlich, on all five occasions, violated Tournament Rule 2 which requires that:

Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. [...]

By claiming other programmers’ work as his own, and failing to comply with the abovementioned rule, Vasik Rajlich has unfairly been awarded one shared 2nd-3rd place (in 2006) and four World Computer Chess Championship titles (in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010). Furthermore, it seems to the ICGA that Vasik Rajlich clearly knew that he was in the wrong in doing so, since he has repeatedly denied plagiarizing the work of other programmers.

As noted above by Dave Mitchell, the scope of needed attribution in computer chess (which overlaps both the academic and commercial worlds) is not always defined -- however the ICGA verdict was not based merely on lack of attribution, but moreso that Rajlich's entries were not original. In this regard, the LION++ case can be recalled: (Ad 1) “original work of the entering developers”. If they had included Fabien Letouzey (with his permission) in the list of authors, there would have been no concerns. Since they had not done so, the discussion was on “original work”. Clearly, the main part of the program LION++ 1.5 was not their original work. [...]

The ICGA concluded similarly in the Rybka case, that a significant part of Rybka (most notably the evaluation function of Rybka 2.3.2a) had its origins in Fruit. In short, the ICGA disagreed with Rajlich's opinion that [t]he vague phrase "derived from game-playing code written by others" also does not in my view apply to Rybka. Also, they found Rajlich's statement that "Rybka is and always was completely original code" to be simply erroneous on the presented evidence.

[wgarvin]

"erroneous" is a rather charitable interpretation of that statement by Vas. I would have called it "untruthful" or "misleading". I think even "deliberately misleading" would apply.

[hyatt]

"erroneous" is a rather charitable interpretation of that statement by Vas. I would have called it "untruthful" or "misleading". I think even "deliberately misleading" would apply.

I think there is a much better word, myself.