Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

27
  • 12
    "any copying and pasting of any amount", this means that even one character?.... being less evasive would be better.
    – sorin
    Commented May 5, 2014 at 15:47
  • 7
    @sorin what exactly constitutes plagiarism will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I don't think it's useful to try and pin down the exact amount in this context. If in doubt, the safest rule of thumb is "don't copy & paste anything".
    – Pekka
    Commented May 5, 2014 at 15:53
  • 5
    This really is a horrible definition of plagiarism. Using someone else's words is the problem, whether that is done using technical tools such as copy+paste, or by manual retyping.
    – Ben Voigt
    Commented Sep 14, 2014 at 5:34
  • 3
    Plagiarism should be defined as "the passing off of any idea as your own, where it was actually copied or reinterpreted from a source for which you show no attribution." Determination of this can be difficult, but moderators are entrusted to reach a decision that benefits the site. To avoid self-referential difficulties, I did not intentionally copy that quote from anywhere else!
    – j5v-exit
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 16:15
  • 4
    @j5v-exit I totally appreciate the sentiment, and I agree, but I'm not sure a standard that strict can work on a programming Q&A site like this one. After all, the right answer to most questions around here - the mundane, everyday ones - is not going to be an original thought, but something taken from a manual or received from someone else at some point. Plus it's going to be absolutely impossible to determine in most cases and the decision that benefits the site will most of the time be, "let the content stay in place"....
    – Pekka
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 21:49
  • 1
    The "why is plagiarism wrong" part is almost entirely about the real-world definition of plagiarism (which requires passing said work off as your own) and not the made-up definition listed here. Everything about why plagiarism is bad in academia is fallacious as part of the argument against "stack exchange plagiarism" listed here. I added a little clarification, but overall this feels very "I want my internet points" whiny and not actually productive.
    – xaxxon
    Commented Feb 28, 2017 at 7:58
  • "Copying someone else's work without permission can also constitute copyright infringement, which is illegal in most countries." this is also not a blanket true statement. I also removed a link to the wikipedia entry for plagiarism because it's referring to the normal definition of plagiarism. If there needs to be rule about citing other works, that's fine, but it's disingenuous to pretend it's plagiarism.
    – xaxxon
    Commented Feb 28, 2017 at 8:40
  • @xaxxon that's why it says "can". I'm very open to suggestions how to improve this (including the definition of "plagiarism"), but the Wikipedia article seems broad enough to warrant linking here.
    – Pekka
    Commented Feb 28, 2017 at 8:42
  • @xaxxon maybe there is a misunderstanding about the purpose of this FAQ entry. The kind of behaviour it was created in reaction to is typically the kind where someone copies a Stack Overflow answer (or some other piece of content on the web) and passes it off as their own. People do this all the time; sometimes, their entire track records consist of nothing else. You can call being opposed to that whiny if you want, I'm not sure what is so problematic about calling the behaviour plagiarism. Far as I can tell, it is plagiarism in the sense that the term is commonly used. Can you elaborate?
    – Pekka
    Commented Feb 28, 2017 at 8:44
  • @Pëkka the wiki article talks about passing work off as your own. That is the primary reason why plagiarism is considered wrong. This definition has literally 0 such requirement.
    – xaxxon
    Commented Feb 28, 2017 at 8:47
  • @xaxxon indeed! You're right, that should be clearer. Not sure what thought process lead to the way it is currently done but in hindsight it's definitely misleading. Will try to improve
    – Pekka
    Commented Feb 28, 2017 at 8:48
  • 1
    @Pëkka well, the only reason I'm here is because someone was quoting it in defense of what was literally posted here, not "dictionary" plagiarism. In the comments here: stackoverflow.com/questions/42500897/… I don't have a problem with requiring citations on copied code, I just don't like people abusing terms to get the generally accepted connotation without the generally accepted denotation. But it sounds like we're on the same page.
    – xaxxon
    Commented Feb 28, 2017 at 8:54
  • 1
    @Pëkka also it appears there are some less-cumbersome definitions of plagiarism which this definition would fall under (see wikipedia article) but some seem to define so much as plagiarism that a simple typo would make you a plagiarist. (no need for a reply)
    – xaxxon
    Commented Feb 28, 2017 at 9:04
  • 1
    "A post that consists only of copied text, even when attributed, is not your work either." It's at worst a derivative work. Plagiarism passing others' works off as your own, without referencing the original source.
    – Geremia
    Commented Jan 28, 2022 at 23:03
  • 1
    The en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_plagiarism_incidents link doesn't work anymore.
    – The_spider
    Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 19:26