3 ms·
That's not plagiarism, that's (cited) paraphrasing. In this case, the author of the original work is explicitly named. It's literally step one in the link that
by johnday 4y ago
That's not plagiarism, that's (cited) paraphrasing. In this case, the author of the original work is explicitly named. It's literally step one in the link that you just posted.
Plagiarism is taking someone else's work and presenting it as your own, original, work. The two are fundamentally different. Confusion between them is the essence of the problem at hand.
- thrwyoilarticle 4y agoThe whole point that the person you're replying to is making is that the paraphrasing is similar in morality to plagiarism.
- johnday 4y agoThe person I'm replying to dropped in "albeit with a reference" as if that's not the critical point. If the author referred to in the original article had cited the plagiarism website, there would be no issue here whatsoever. It's the misrepresentation of others' ideas and rhetoric as one's own (paraphrased or otherwise) that's the problem here.