5 ms·
I'm confused. That is not plagiarism at all. The facts included are the same, but they are written completely differently.
by jjeaff 4y ago
I'm confused. That is not plagiarism at all. The facts included are the same, but they are written completely differently.
- sacrosancty 4y agoYea, it's paraphrasing. But it's still a terrible way to write. Bello's version even contradicts itself giving 8 AD as the beginning of plagiarism, not the origin of the word. That's what happens when you paraphrase by reshuffling the words instead of creating new writing from the information that's in your head.
- drakonka 4y agoParaphrasing can for sure be a very common form of plagiarism[0][1] [0] https://www.scribbr.com/frequently-asked-questions/is-paraphrasing-considered-plagiarism/ https://www.scribbr.com/frequently-asked-questions/is-paraph... [1] https://law-richmond.libguides.com/c.php?g=998384&p=7227189 https://law-richmond.libguides.com/c.php?g=998384&p=7227189
- jjeaff 4y agoIt doesn't seem like paraphrasing to me. I can imagine two people writing about this same topic coming up with both of those examples independently. Bello's paragraph includes specifics that aren't even in the supposed source.
- tovej 4y agoThat's clear-cut plagiarism. The structure of the text is exactly the same and even specific phrasing is copied verbatim.
- johnday 4y agoThey're not written completely differently. They share the same structure and cover the same content using the same rhetorical devices. The fact that they use different words does not diminish the fact that this is plagiarism.
- jjeaff 4y agotwo articles written about plagiarism will invariably have similar contents. Especially information about the origin of the word. The structure only seems loosely similar to me.