3 ms·
> Having to rephrase something because someone already said it that way is an insane waste of time from a bygone era. Which is precisely why you are not requir
by weland 12y ago
> Having to rephrase something because someone already said it that way is an insane waste of time from a bygone era.
Which is precisely why you are not required to do it (and never were), as long as you properly quote and attribute it :).
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago>Which is precisely why you are not required to do it Right or wrong (I know, it's wrong), this silly 'phrase it in your own words' idea is taught to many students as the way to avoid plagiarizing others' works.
- weland 12y agoIt's taught as the way to avoid plagiarism because, for students, the rate of "accidental" plagiarism is extremely high: they tend to unintentionally repeat an author's affirmation simply because it is so well formulated that it "sticks" to their mind. It also helps them avoid "newspaper clipping" articles, where they write a ten-page paper full of "X's view on the matter is that... whereas Y disagrees because...", which is considered a form of plagiarism.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago>It's taught as the way to avoid plagiarism because, for students, the rate of "accidental" plagiarism is extremely high Well it's wrong because it is teaching students to avoid detection, not to avoid plagiarizing. Which is it? Can you "properly quote and attribute" or not? Your post seems to be in conflict with what you said two posts ago.