Re: Plagiarism/boilerplate

[Lynnell Edwards <ledwar@mail.cu-portland.edu>]

> I think this issue of what's "perceived" as plagiarism is a really important
> dimension to the subject. Like the "boilerplate" of grant writing, my first job
> out of college was in public relations for the Kentucky Center for the Arts.
> One of my responsibilities (in addition to all kinds of weird things like
> hauling chinese acrobats around to McDonald's at six in the morning)  was to
> write press releases for attractions based on the press kits they sent us.  I
> routinely used -- and the agents intended me to do this -- entire passages
> describing the "enchanting melodies of the magical Montavani Orchestra" (not
> that I didn't wish I could write something that graceful, of course)
> Invariably, then, I would see my entire press release lifted verbatim and
> printed in any one of several downtown entertainment circulars, often without
> my name.  And I was extremely pleased to see it happen. I also routinely called
> state offices to "get a quote" which I then, correctly, attributed to the
> intended speaker.  I don't think anyone would have considered any of what
> happened plagiarism, though nothing was ever documented and much of the
> wordsmithing I did involved moving around chunks of pre-written texts.

Plagiarism, I would argue, is really a construct of the academy, the only place
where there could be such a concept as "intellectual property." Maybe it's
because we don't see ourselves as having any other kind of property, and in our
culture no other group would care that much about "intellectual" property
anyway.  The arts seem to have a similar code of ethics (I just saw a newspaper
article describing a suite against the producers of "The Full Monty" for ripping
off a theater play with similar scenes).

It might be interesting to see across industry whether, in fact, there are lots
of conventions for what we would call "legitimate plagiarism." In fact, I
wouldn't be surprised if somehow getting someone else to write or work on your
stuff isn't considered a bona fide survival skill.  I have had at least one
student with a learning disability who worked very hard on her papers, did
thorough research, wrote and revised them and then took them to her father to
have them "polished."  She really did do the lion's share of the work -- and in
fact it still suffered from some of the organizational problems she had
generated..  But it was generally flawless, professional sounding prose.  I had a
hard time explaining to her why she shouldn't do that.  She did the "real" work
(in her eyes; it was just the "writing" part that her dad helped her with) and
knowing that she had a learning disability that generated all kinds of wacky
syntax, she found a survival strategy that helped her produce a good final
product.  I am sure when she does go into professional social work (her chosen
major) she will wisely enlist the help of a friend, companion, or colleague to
help her clean up reports before she turns them in, and I don't imagine her
supervisor will really care.

I guess I'm not surprised then that students don't have any ethical problems with
some forms of plagiarism since the ethical positions of many industries don't see
an ethical problem with it.  I'm not sure that the real problem the Internet
presents us with is just the unusual accessibility to texts as much as it the
"authorlessness" feel to the Internet itself; it seems to have no owner/author
and our society is promoting it with such democrati abandon --- it's (virtually)
free!  anyone can get on it!  anyone can print anything on it!  Nothing about
your "real" identity (bound by race, class, or gender) will "interfere" with the
promotion and circulation of your text!  Everyone has access to the same
material!

Indeed. Goodness, it nearly requires us to plagiarize.Lynnell Edwards
Concordia University

>
>