The Sandbox : How is Paraphrasing Suppose to be Plagarism?

How is Paraphrasing Suppose to be Plagarism?

I don't understand how some teachers consider the rewording of facts to be plagarism. If you put it exactly in your own words, you begin to stray from the facts. I've never plagarised before, but it really annoys me when teachers bring that up. I do not consider paraphrasing a fact to be plagarism. How is restating facts suppose to be plagarism?

ZeWhiteRockSalesman?

Re: How is Paraphrasing Suppose to be Plagarism?

I believe it is a case of specifying the source of those facts, otherwise people may believe that you discovered those facts. There is probably an unspecified length of time where facts no longer need to be cited. You can say Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon without citing anyone but other facts are the result of more recent original research. If research is needed for us to know the facts it should probably be cited. Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon has been passed down continuously since it occurred, probably, so it does not need to be cited. That extraterrestrials crash landed in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 was only rediscovered in the 1970s by diligent historians. They should be cited.

Re: How is Paraphrasing Suppose to be Plagarism?

otherwise people may believe that you discovered those facts.

In a way you discovered those facts by yourself through another source and then other people discovered those facts through you; mimesis, a critical and philosophical term that carries a wide range of meanings, which include imitation, representation, mimicry, imitatio, receptivity, nonsensuous similarity, the act of resembling, the act of expression, and the presentation of the self, Gebauer and Wulf (1992, 1)
Top