4 ms·
Is there documentation of this 22% figure? The implication is that it's large paragraphs of solid work stolen from a fellow researcher in the field. But it cou
by ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Is there documentation of this 22% figure?
The implication is that it's large paragraphs of solid work stolen from a fellow researcher in the field. But it could just as easily mean 22% of her text was scattered with cliches, idioms and excerpts from legislation (or other standard texts) if someone with an agenda was interpreting the results.
- TomK32 3y agoYou can have those 22%, no question, but then you have to cite the source which the minister apparently didn't.
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoNo, you don't need to cite cliches. Nor do you need to paraphrase legislation or other technical texts so obliquely that not a single phrase of it will be detected by a text matching algorithm. Nor do the tools have a human level understanding of what has or has not been cited properly.
- tkgally 3y agoWikipedia has details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Borch_and_Ingvild_Kjerkol_plagiarism_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Borch_and_Ingvild_Kjerk...
- 15457345234 3y agoPolitics and Wikipedia don't mix The 'talk' page of that article is completely empty and not a single one of the citations is in English. For all intents and purposes you're taking everything written there on pure faith because the chance that some uninterested observer has double-checked all of those citations is basically zero.