5 ms·

You cannot copy from yourself. Reusing material and passing it off as new, no matter its author, is plagiarism.

by toxik 3y ago

malfist 3y ago
I'm sorry but what? If I can't grant myself rights to my work, then who can?
- vorticalbox 3y ago
  I believe the key point is > passing it off as new If you're not doing that then I would assume it's fine?
  - smeej 3y ago
    When did newness become part of the definition? It's not on the etymological history of the word. It's not in dictionary definitions of the word. Where is this coming from?
- yrro 3y ago
  It's fine to re-use your own work as long as you cite. If you don't site then you're plagiarising yourself.
  - smeej 3y ago
    The default assumption is that everything I do not cite is my own. I'm the one doing the writing.
- ColinWright 3y ago
  Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. It's about passing off material as new when it isn't. You can quote any previous work, others and/or your own, but you must highlight/identify it as such.
  - Engineering-MD 3y ago
    That includes citing your work that is unpublished (there are valid ways to cite unpublished work), and building on it which would be fine in many cases.
  - smeej 3y ago
    Whose definition is this "newness"? Plagiarism is about passing other people's work off as your own. It comes from a Greek root about kidnapping, not about how old something is.
    - ColinWright 3y ago
      Your observation about the root of the word might be accurate, but (in my personal view unfortunately) is not relevant. "Plagiarism" is now used to describe previously published (and in some cases unpublished!) work that is being "recycled", regardless of author, without explicitly noting it to be such. I'm not defending the usage, I'm simply explaining how the term is now used. Language mutates, origins are lost, and usage evolves. You may choose to quote dictionary definitions, but dictionaries document usage, and of necessity can never be fully up-to-date with more recent changes. This is especially true when the terms are being interpreted within a specific context. In many academic environments "self-plagiarism" is an adaptation of the original concept to indicate that students cannot repeatedly submit the same work over and over again. They will say something like "Work for this accreditation must be new and original" and then use the term "self-plagiarism" to describe when that stipulation is breached. As I say, language evolves. People even say "The proof is in the pudding" and "I could care less". These are idioms that convey meaning as an entirety and are not to be interpreted according to the meaning of the words therein. Similarly, now in some contexts "self-plagiarism" is a term used to describe recycling one's own work. Sometimes it's fine, sometimes it's not. Love it, like it, or loathe it, the term exists and describes "A Thing(tm)".
      - smeej 3y ago
        This is why I'm asking whose definition it is. Whose idea was it to start using this term, which had a useful and important definition for generations, to refer to something else now, and then act as though everyone should just know this? I'd assume it would have had to be somebody pretty important, for their fiat to have such weight. I'd like to know who it was.
haizhung 3y ago
+1, my layman’s understanding of this was: Assume you write a bachelor thesis on topic X. Then, move universities (or professors, whatever), and write more or less the same thesis again to get a masters degree. That’s self plagiarism.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  The problem with that is that it’s academic dishonesty. You’re turning in work for academic credit that you didn’t do. Transfer the self-plagiarism situation to another context, say you self-publish a book and re-use some material from another book you wrote. The fact of self-plagiarism may still exist but in this new context it’s not clear that the harm does (whereas copying another writer’s words is still clearly harmful.)
  - mijoharas 3y ago
    > You’re turning in work for academic credit that you didn’t do This doesn't sound true if you're copying your own work surely? If that's the case it must by definition be work that you did, right?
    - matthewdgreen 3y ago
      If I turn in the same project for two different courses without flagging it, that's considered a violation of many academic (teaching) integrity codes. Similarly if you hire me to write a bespoke piece of software (with copyright assigned to you) and I re-use code I've delivered to other clients, that could be considered a damaging violation of our contract. You could refer to both of these cases as "self-plagiarism", but that's just a phrase: the actual harm caused by it is very specific to the context it occurs in. (And any punishments/opprobrium we assign to it should be similarly context-dependent.)
      - smeej 3y ago
        There's a difference between a school writing up its own set of conduct rules and plagiarism. Any two entities can agree to any set of terms they want. If a school says you have to sign a code of conduct to go there, and it prohibits submitting the same work for more than one course, fine. If someone breaks that rule, accuse them of violating the code of conduct. But that's not plagiarism. "Self-plagiarism" is a contradiction in terms.
uxp100 3y ago
As a student anyway. Self plagiarism is a controversial topic in other circumstances. Many academics feel that if they described some element of an experiment some way it’s because that’s the best way they could imagine. If they do the experiment in some other way, or write up something for other publications or whatever it would be absurd to not take their own sentences if they want.
- astura 3y ago
  Which would be fine, as long as they cited their first experiment.
  - uxp100 3y ago
    Many academics do not believe that this is necessary. Maybe the experiment example is a bad one, since it would make sense to cite a related experiment. Perhaps writing a pop science article that uses a paragraph from a paper they wrote is a better example. But I think my example would not be acceptable for a student. You may not re-use a paragraph you wrote, even if you cite it. Double submission is often treated similarly to plagiarism. My main point is that what is and isn’t plagiarism is contested, outside of high school and undergraduate students.
    - smeej 3y ago
      > But I think my example would not be acceptable for a student. You may not re-use a paragraph you wrote, even if you cite it. Double submission is often treated similarly to plagiarism. Why not? That's the part I (top level commenter) have never understood. Why am I limited to having or expressing my ideas in one venue only, and only once? Why don't I have unlimited right to use my own thoughts as often as I care to?
soerxpso 3y ago
I'll grant your definition of plagiarism. Now, under this definition (which differs from what any layman would think of "plagiarism" as) explain why plagiarism is bad. Who exactly is harmed when I repeat my own words?
smeej 3y ago
I never presented it as new. I presented it as mine. Any work I don't cite in a paper should be presumed to be mine.

You cannot copy from yourself. Reusing material and passing it off as new, no matter its author, is plagiarism.

by toxik 3y ago

You cannot copy from yourself. Reusing material and passing it off as new, no matter its author, is plagiarism.

malfist 3y ago

I'm sorry but what? If I can't grant myself rights to my work, then who can?

vorticalbox 3y ago
I believe the key point is > passing it off as new If you're not doing that then I would assume it's fine?
- smeej 3y ago
  When did newness become part of the definition? It's not on the etymological history of the word. It's not in dictionary definitions of the word. Where is this coming from?
yrro 3y ago
It's fine to re-use your own work as long as you cite. If you don't site then you're plagiarising yourself.
- smeej 3y ago
  The default assumption is that everything I do not cite is my own. I'm the one doing the writing.
ColinWright 3y ago
Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement. It's about passing off material as new when it isn't. You can quote any previous work, others and/or your own, but you must highlight/identify it as such.
- Engineering-MD 3y ago
  That includes citing your work that is unpublished (there are valid ways to cite unpublished work), and building on it which would be fine in many cases.
- smeej 3y ago
  Whose definition is this "newness"? Plagiarism is about passing other people's work off as your own. It comes from a Greek root about kidnapping, not about how old something is.
  - ColinWright 3y ago
    Your observation about the root of the word might be accurate, but (in my personal view unfortunately) is not relevant. "Plagiarism" is now used to describe previously published (and in some cases unpublished!) work that is being "recycled", regardless of author, without explicitly noting it to be such. I'm not defending the usage, I'm simply explaining how the term is now used. Language mutates, origins are lost, and usage evolves. You may choose to quote dictionary definitions, but dictionaries document usage, and of necessity can never be fully up-to-date with more recent changes. This is especially true when the terms are being interpreted within a specific context. In many academic environments "self-plagiarism" is an adaptation of the original concept to indicate that students cannot repeatedly submit the same work over and over again. They will say something like "Work for this accreditation must be new and original" and then use the term "self-plagiarism" to describe when that stipulation is breached. As I say, language evolves. People even say "The proof is in the pudding" and "I could care less". These are idioms that convey meaning as an entirety and are not to be interpreted according to the meaning of the words therein. Similarly, now in some contexts "self-plagiarism" is a term used to describe recycling one's own work. Sometimes it's fine, sometimes it's not. Love it, like it, or loathe it, the term exists and describes "A Thing(tm)".
    - smeej 3y ago
      This is why I'm asking whose definition it is. Whose idea was it to start using this term, which had a useful and important definition for generations, to refer to something else now, and then act as though everyone should just know this? I'd assume it would have had to be somebody pretty important, for their fiat to have such weight. I'd like to know who it was.

haizhung 3y ago

+1, my layman’s understanding of this was: Assume you write a bachelor thesis on topic X. Then, move universities (or professors, whatever), and write more or less the same thesis again to get a masters degree. That’s self plagiarism.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
The problem with that is that it’s academic dishonesty. You’re turning in work for academic credit that you didn’t do. Transfer the self-plagiarism situation to another context, say you self-publish a book and re-use some material from another book you wrote. The fact of self-plagiarism may still exist but in this new context it’s not clear that the harm does (whereas copying another writer’s words is still clearly harmful.)
- mijoharas 3y ago
  > You’re turning in work for academic credit that you didn’t do This doesn't sound true if you're copying your own work surely? If that's the case it must by definition be work that you did, right?
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    If I turn in the same project for two different courses without flagging it, that's considered a violation of many academic (teaching) integrity codes. Similarly if you hire me to write a bespoke piece of software (with copyright assigned to you) and I re-use code I've delivered to other clients, that could be considered a damaging violation of our contract. You could refer to both of these cases as "self-plagiarism", but that's just a phrase: the actual harm caused by it is very specific to the context it occurs in. (And any punishments/opprobrium we assign to it should be similarly context-dependent.)
    - smeej 3y ago
      There's a difference between a school writing up its own set of conduct rules and plagiarism. Any two entities can agree to any set of terms they want. If a school says you have to sign a code of conduct to go there, and it prohibits submitting the same work for more than one course, fine. If someone breaks that rule, accuse them of violating the code of conduct. But that's not plagiarism. "Self-plagiarism" is a contradiction in terms.

uxp100 3y ago

As a student anyway. Self plagiarism is a controversial topic in other circumstances. Many academics feel that if they described some element of an experiment some way it’s because that’s the best way they could imagine. If they do the experiment in some other way, or write up something for other publications or whatever it would be absurd to not take their own sentences if they want.

astura 3y ago
Which would be fine, as long as they cited their first experiment.
- uxp100 3y ago
  Many academics do not believe that this is necessary. Maybe the experiment example is a bad one, since it would make sense to cite a related experiment. Perhaps writing a pop science article that uses a paragraph from a paper they wrote is a better example. But I think my example would not be acceptable for a student. You may not re-use a paragraph you wrote, even if you cite it. Double submission is often treated similarly to plagiarism. My main point is that what is and isn’t plagiarism is contested, outside of high school and undergraduate students.
  - smeej 3y ago
    > But I think my example would not be acceptable for a student. You may not re-use a paragraph you wrote, even if you cite it. Double submission is often treated similarly to plagiarism. Why not? That's the part I (top level commenter) have never understood. Why am I limited to having or expressing my ideas in one venue only, and only once? Why don't I have unlimited right to use my own thoughts as often as I care to?

soerxpso 3y ago

I'll grant your definition of plagiarism. Now, under this definition (which differs from what any layman would think of "plagiarism" as) explain why plagiarism is bad. Who exactly is harmed when I repeat my own words?

smeej 3y ago

I never presented it as new. I presented it as mine. Any work I don't cite in a paper should be presumed to be mine.