Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:23, 27 May 2006

In the wake of the Roots phenomenon, two plaintiffs accused Haley of that given his extensive and often unannotated note-taking, he had accidentally used material from author Harold Courlander's book The African (1968). Critics also questioned Haley's method of presenting fiction as fact. Haley, however, repeatedly defended his methods as a necessary way of tapping the emotional poignancy of his subject. (Source: )

• Alex Haley acknowleged that a large section of his historical novel Roots - including the plot, main character and scores of whole passages - was lifted from "The African," a 1967 novel by Hal Courlander.

I have major problems with the reference since it comes from a web site (www.martinlutherking.org) which also includes an essay from David Duke about Jews, Communism, and Civil Rights.

Plagiarism occurs whether intended or not

The first paragraph states: "Essential to an act of plagiarism is an element of dishonesty in attempting to pass off the plagiarised work as original." That is incorrect. Plagiarism occurs whether there is intention to deceive or not. I'll correct this unless anyone has an objection.

I removed this:

• FrontPage contains many examples of Plagiarism, vis. the Misplaced Pages entry for Jordan and the astoundingly similar entry found in the http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/jo.html

...but it does bring up some points that might be worth saying something about. Maybe something about works like Misplaced Pages not making any particular claim of authorship, and works like the CIA factbook being intended for copying, or about plagiarism only applying to creative works and not mere collections of facts, etc.

Oops! I might have chosen a BAD SOURCE for the Alex Haley thing. I cited http://www.martinlutherking.org thinking the URL indicated a website devoted to Martin Luther King. Apparently, it's an anti-MLK site promoting David Duke. I will have to double check everything I wrote about Alex Haley now.

I hate it when I get fooled -- I'm too trusting, I guess. :-( --Ed Poor

So, is the Martin Luther King accusation that is in the article supported or not? --Shallot 22:39, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Plagiarism has to do with passing another's work as your own - nothing to do wi whether the information is in public domain or otherwise not "copyrightable" - As a writer I *should* attribute my sources even though there is no legal liability for failure to do so. So if I use information from World Factbook I should let the reader know so they (1) can determine the source and (2) check the information.

bob

it is funny how easy/often it is to fidn plagiarism on the internet. especially in domain-specific topics, perhaps gardening information or plant information. frequently entire pages will be copied with little or no change, no credit given, etc.

Haley citations now included.

== Plagiarism is not illegal == - - The current article has one or two inaccuracies. Unfortunately the first sentence is wrong - plagiarism is not illegal. In fact, plagiarism is not recognised in law. Copyright and Intellectual Property are legal terms - not plagiarism. I'll edit the article when I have time. - - * (not the above editor) - - Apart from arguments about terminology, this is not correct. In general, in any country that supports the Hague Convention, you have full copyright rights in a work from the moment it's created. Unauthorized use of the work (which plagiarism is) is therefore a violation of copyright law. 168.12.253.82 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC) - - :Plagiarism is often illegal, but you can plaigiarize the ideas in a work without violating its copyright (which only protects the specific expression of those ideas), and you can also plagiarize the content of out-of-copyright works whose authors died 70+ years ago. Deco 20:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism is a great way to get a paper done quickly and as long as you don't cite anything, then it is nearly impossible to find out if something was plagiarized.

Is this worth mentioning?

Both my high school and the english _and_ computer science departments on my university have the following policy: If you copy someone else's full text (or, in the latter case, any non-trivial amount of code) with proper credit given, you will receive a zero on the assignment. If you fail to give proper credit, you will also (in the case of my high school, receive a warning and ultimately risk failing the class or being suspended, or, at university: ) be referred to the office of the dean of students - How prevalent is this attitude and is it worth mentioning? --Random832 08:35, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)

influenced by someone's ideas

If I read about someone else's idea, and am influenced by that idea, but I write something that is quite my own work, is it considered plagiarism?

No, but it's probably just good manners to acknowledge the other person's idea. Lee M 04:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removing this:

• Martin Luther King, Jr. plagiarized his doctoral thesis and other works

On the ground that it doesn't mention the plagiarised sources and offers no reference to corroborate the claim. Someone put it back in if it can be substantiated. --JRM 12:03, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

Self-plagiarism

What is this? Copying your own work? Someone please explain, remove or edit it please.

In academia, self-plagiarism would be like turning in one assignment to more than on instructor without informing both.--Fallout boy 07:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If I send the same application essay to two colleges, does that constitute a plagiarism? I must go and apologize to my colleges if so. 202.161.131.69 18:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (My IP is not permanent.)

dissertation plagiarism, in the U.S.A.

I noticed a plagiarism, a 1982 Ph.D. dissertation of Northwestern University, Ill, USA. Is that also a "business" case? Although at the web ( http://www.geocities.com/ferzenr/decalun.htm ), I kept the names secret, I may tell that to any people who understand the subject (Petri net, etc).

The case is especially gross, as the advisor of that dissertation is a highy decorated, social type -- an (old) editor-in-chief of IEEE Computer magazine, etc.

The plagiarism glares when the absurd (unproven & provably false) claims get omitted.

The jury had to block that, until at least they understood what that is.

The IEEE TransSoftEng article (1983), after that Ph.D. is false in each figure -- except the 4th, which is trivially the similar of the signs of SARA/UCLA-graphs (System ARchitects Apprentice, of UCLA, after UCLA graphs). Has no peer really ever traced those figures?

FerzenR 10:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

on self-plagiarism

• That is policy-dependent, though. As a research-paper is an implicit claim of furthering knowledge, the researcher must state what exactly is the claim of novelty. That would let the editor to rate the article in view of their policy. For example, all/most would reject a paper if already published in another journal, although may tolerate (as IEEE does) a re-edited conference paper.
• A high-schooler, or a trade magazine (e.g: CUJ, DDJ) author, is understood to have reflected (written from) his/her accumulation/technique (original, or not) to the extent he/she wanted to reflect, in that article. Not necessarily his/her auto-biography. Although exact referencing could help the inquisitive reader to trace for reading further, that is an extra. Not the rule.
• If that is a positional statement, even exact-replication may fit fine, if only the statement is in the general tense. e.g: "I think ...," or "I have faith that ...," etc. No need to try to refer to yourself recursively, if next time, again, to iterate your opinion for-or-againt that old quetion. (e.g: pro-life vs. pro-choice, intelligent-design vs. evolution.) If teacher questioned that, he/she'll read that, as the other questioner did.

FerzenR 07:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

concurrent-submission is not necesarily self-plagiarism

There are certainly reasons why a journal or professor may not desire to accept a paper already submitted to another, such as limited reviewer resources, but the question is whether this is properly called plagiarism or just some other form of rule-breaking. Deco 09:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That is two issues in one. If you refer to submission to the point of publication, then the editors were supposed to know, and the case is self-plagiarism.

Otherwise, that is not plagiarim, but concurrent-submission (this is one of the names employed to mean that case). Yes that is a waste of resource, in the case of those journals which do not get the paper to publish. That is, if 15 journals nod that paper, while only one of them may publish, that is a waste -- for 14 of them. Most (all?) journals and popular magazines already tell the potential author not to do that. Alternatively, for an application to the graduate school, the university does not ban that. If that model (request a fee) is/were popular also in the publication field, the "waste of resource" would only relate to the money from out of the pocket of the applicant. If the final publication does pay (or, the author does want that for other motivation), the author may take that risk to pay for the review of a few, I think. This would facilitate more opportunities to get tested, sooner. FerzenR 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Potential NPOV Issues

The paragraph on 'Why Plagiarism is a Problem' seems to suffer from POV. Its explicit goal seems to be to prove to the reader that plagiarism is ethically wrong and a societal ill. The whole thing is essentially several weak arguments, beginning with an argument which attempts to connect plagiarism with death, that attempt to blow plagiarism entirely out of proportion. Unfounded, vague, and subjective statements such as the "Plagiarism also holds back progress." have no place in an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a medium for extolling certain editors' views on academic prudence. The paragraph should either be reworked into a series of argumets associated with individuals or groups, such as professors, teachers, or scholars in the field, or scrapped entirely. Geuiwogbil 10:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've moved it here for cleanup. The claims that plagiarism can lead to wrongful death are anecdotal even if true. The claims that plagiarism forces other students to plagiarize is true but unsupported and it doesn't emphasize why plagiarism is a problem in the first place. The claims of Asia universities ignoring plagiarism from foreign students for money seem like unsupported slander to me, and the singling out of Asia as a breeding ground for plagiarism seems to overlook plagiarism worldwide. The part about Ian Firns and the subsequent resignation of two university figures is good though. Deco 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why Plagiarism is a Problem?

Plagiarism is a problem because it is a form of cheating. Irrespective of the student’s intention, undetected plagiarism may result in the student receiving a higher grade than he or she would have received without the inclusion of the plagiarised material. The resulting (inflated) grade may be used for entrance to further education or employment – thereby deceiving entrance officers or employers into believing that the student possesses knowledge and skills that he or she does not. If the plagiarist then goes on to obtain work in a life-critical job/field, results can be catastrophic. Plagiarism also holds back progress. If students and researchers simply regurgitate others’ work, then academic progress stagnates through a dearth of original work.

A less tangible problem is the corrosive effects that plagiarism has on the student body and on society in general. Once plagiarism reaches a certain level, students who would not normally plagiarise may feel that they must in order to compete with their fellow students. Undetected plagiarism may encourage cheating outside of school or college, and foster bad habits which students take into the workplace.

In some situations, bringing plagiarists to book can be difficult. In 2003, Ian Firns of Newcastle University in Australia, visiting Wira Institute in Malaysia, determined that 15 students had plagiarised, and had failed them. He was fired; however, he had drawn the attention of the Australian Anti-Corruption agency to a large problem, resulting in the resignation of two important university figures in July 2005. The problem is that many public universities in the West and private colleges in Asia rely on foreign students who pay the full fee and then some. These students are considered so lucrative that administrators are willing to close their eyes to obvious cases of plagiarism, and it is in the economic interests of the universities/private colleges to graduate as many of them as possible to maintain profitability, resulting in education as a business, not a 'calling'. Plagiarism is a major problem in many private colleges and public universities throughout Asia.

plagiarism is a concept of the modern age?

How is plagiarism a concept of the modern age? It isn't really an issue of intellectual property, it's taking credit for something you didn't do. It applied just as much at the beginning of written language as it does today. Matthew Crumley

• Agreed - removed the sentence. -- Barfooz 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

examples

i don't see the use of the section "famous examples". as we see in the discussion page even older and arguably resolved cases are highly controversial and the motivation in taking sides often very political. At the very least, cases still investigated must wait. the purpose of the article is to define plagiarism, not to condemn individual cases of plagiarism. this can be done in the articles on the persons involved (provided the case is already closed) 130.113.105.43 14:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

From the Definition section:

Plagiarism is the use of another person’s work (this could be his or her words, products or ideas) for personal advantage, without proper acknowledgement of the original work, and with the intention of passing it off as one's own work. Plagiarism may occur deliberately (with the intention to deceive) or accidentally (due to poor referencing).

How can it occur accidentally due to poor referencing and with the intention of passing it off as one's own work? —Guanaco 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Poor proofreading, perhaps? Say a student copies some data from the Internet, and forgets to reference it with a footnote. It becomes "plagiarism", albeit unintentionally. HubHikari 21:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the student lacks the intention of passing it off as his own. —Guanaco 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why plagiarism occurs needs sources

The section entitled Why plagiarism occurs makes several claims that appear to be taken from a work or works of research, but does not cite any specific work of research. Could the contributor responsible for it provide sources? Thanks. Deco 02:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that this list is identical to the list here without citiation or attribution? Except the last reason in the wikipedia version which makes it seem like it's baiting Misplaced Pages. --Tbeatty 17:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the same as here except a line has been added. That would be violate the terms of the web page for copying. It's not cited on that web page so I don't know if it's orginal. In any case it's not cited on wikipedia. --Tbeatty 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why plagiarism occurs 

Students cite many reasons for plagiarising, including:

1. being unaware that they’re plagiarising
2. lacking knowledge and understanding of the subject
3. poor time management skills
4. feeling that the subject is unimportant
5. believing that plagiarism isn’t serious
6. feeling pressured due to over-assessment
7. poor teaching
8. they've done it before and not been caught

The most common reason given by students is ignorance about plagiarism – that they were unclear about the plagiarism policy and, therefore, unaware that they were doing anything wrong. Many school districts have a plagiarism policy, which punishes students in increasing severity the more times that they're caught. A common misunderstanding among students relates to paraphrased material. Many students do not realise that paraphrased material should be attributed to the original author in the same manner as a direct quotation.

Some students do not consider plagiarism a serious offence since it does not (in their view) harm other students. Research has shown that students consider cheating in an examination to be much more serious than plagiarising coursework – even if both contribute to final grades.

--Tbeatty 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

incompetence

Plagiarism is not directly lethal -- as long as written pages do not blow. However, through the combination of

• incompetence (which is highly implicated by plagiarism)
• a potentially life-critical field (or, bankruptcy-prone, etc).

we have a big pattern of plagiarism-based-catastrophical-consequences. Telling anecdotes is the news-business. In contrast, a pattern is the generative root of all the anecdotes, and would have a place there, even if there were not any known cases.

altruism & plagiarism

No mention of people who think themselves as the ultimate altruists, when they help other people (or their children) in homework/etc, in tight time, illness, etc. (Just as the evil consequences of plagiarism got left out, we leave out these value-judgments, too, I infer.) ((By the way, stage-6, the last stage, of moral development, as Kohlberg listed, is able to weigh conscience v. law, when they differ -- for example, to help disadvantaged people, affirmatively. Do we leave this discussion to the judgment of the reader? Or, should we weigh the good-v.-evil contexts? And offer non-plagiaristic alternatives to ... ))

No mention of 5-6-people groups in courses, where only single student writes all of "their" program/paper/etc. Do those other students count as plagiarists (esp. if they have not even thought alternative-coding, themselves)?

(I would not strain the imagination by questioning whether that single student who wrote the software would also get a bad label, as (in case, that were) the lecturer meant them to collaborate, not single-person job.)

FerzenR 05:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tag

I've started checking some of the information in the famous cases. The Joe Biden one was completely wrong and exaggerated and I believe the case of Martin Luther King Jr is as well. I'm going to remove all the uncited examples wholesale if people don't cite them. This is libel and just the kind of thing that gets Misplaced Pages into trouble with the media. (Bjorn Tipling 23:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Actually, Biden's is not completely wrong. I replaced it with citations. 30 April 2006

Famous examples section lacks citations

Similar to the note above (under "Dispute tag"): I didn't add a {{unreferencedsect}} tag but many (most?) of the "famous" examples of plagarism lack citations. If they're famous, we should be able to find something that has been published about them to justify our assertions that (a) it was indeed plagarism and (b) it is a famous example of plagarism. Please add citations and references if you know of any or have the time and desire to locate them. At some point someone (me, for example) might begin removing uncited famous examples if no citations or references can be easily located and added. Not a threat - just trying to uphold standards and such. --ElKevbo 05:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Extra whitespace

Is the extra whitespace in the middle of the Definition section intentional? Ken 05:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Content plagiarising is so popular. As a professional I have to check and recheck when analyzing the content. Copywriting also involves plagiarism and it is a shame that some of the specialists that take part in designing important educational web sites take the liberty to copy-paste materials without even editing or placing them as a quotation. However due to the frequency of plagiarism cases online we have plenty of tools and possibilities to fight with lack of human imagination and honesty.--Contento 14:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Essayfraud.org

I've deleted essayfraud out of the list, because I wouldn't like students, especially my students that sometimes write or read from wikipedia to see a list of over a hundred cheat sites. I kindly ask all the readers that have some relation to education or really are concerned about the issue to further delete this link form the article if someone decides to place it there again. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.97.12 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern and empathize with you but your reason for deleting the link is insufficient. Given that the onus is on you to justify the edit, I've readded the site. Wikipiedia is not censored. --ElKevbo 13:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I've found a person interested in the topic. I was not against this site being present in the list until I saw this comment . It was made by a respectable person involved in education problems as much as I am. I think this will be convincing enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.199.172.146 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well. It would have been helpul if you had posted that link in the first place (if I missed it, please accept my apologies!). In addition, please remember to sign your posts. --ElKevbo 18:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note, 217.199.172.146, that you may not delete others' posts based on your biased, personal opinion. You want to delete a completely legitimate resource in the fight against plagiarism because you believe that displaying a list of fraudulent sites will entice students to USE those sites? Come on . . . . The complete opposite takes place. EssayFraud.org contains so many horror stories that students who read the site undoubtedly throw their hands up and just write their own papers. That's the goal of EssayFraud.org.

As for Mr. Hover's comments, he made them right after EssayFraud.org launched. He did not understand the intent of the site, and he unfairly tore it apart because of his own judgemental, misinformed, knee-jerk, biased OPINION. As I previously mentioned, deleting based on anyone's bias opinion has no place in Misplaced Pages.

Let's face it--students already know that plagiarism is morally wrong and academically punishable, but they take the risk anyway, right? With that fact in mind, EssayFraud.org goes a step further by showing students that even if they DO decide to take the ridiculous risk of being punished academically if caught, they will still waste a lot of money on a paper with terrible grammar/spelling. (And that's IF they receive the paper at all!) They will also get purposely overcharged and have no recourse because most of the paper mills are foreign-based. Furthermore, EssayFraud.org explains to students that all of the promises and guarantees on these plagiarism sites are rubbish. The crappy papers are never delivered on time, either. Finally, EssayFraud.org enables students to read the actual rip-off experiences of other students who learned to avoid plagiarism sites the HARD way. All of these things added up make for a very UNAPPEALING purchase. That's the goal of EssayFraud.org, and it works.

SarahTeach 21:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Apologies for reverting your edit without reading your comments first. I waited over 20 minutes after your edit said to "See discussion" and still saw no discussion. I thought I had been stood up. :)

I'd like to propose a cessation on editing this particular link for a few days to allow others time to comment. You can readd the link during this time if you'd like - I won't delete it. If we don't get any comments, I'd like to propose an RFC to ensure we get some good comments and different opinions.

I'm afraid I agree with the blog post linked to above in that essayfraud.org does seem to be a very suspicious site with little notability or useful content. I am also put off by your own edit history which is almost entirely composed of removing other "essay" websites and placing links to essayfraud.com on different articles.

Finally, I am unconvinced by your arguments and find them to be unrelated to justification for inclusion of a link in an encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo 21:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I find it odd that you want to punish me because I have a history of deleting essay mill SPAM and posting a link to a site that lessens the number of term paper sales. How does that make any sense? How in the world is that fair? And if the site has no useful content, as you state, why is it that when I emailed EssayFraud.org to express my support of their efforts, it took them almost 2 weeks to respond because they said they receive hundreds of emails every week from thankful academics and it takes a lot of time to respond in detail to each one? I've searched high and low, and no other site on the Internet has even a fraction of the insider information revealed on EssayFraud.org. They fight plagiarism in an innovative way, and it is extremely effective. On what basis do you deny this fact? Do you deny that students write their own papers after being scared by the horror stories at EssayFraud.org? SarahTeach 21:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to "punish you." Your edit history simply puts me off as it is similar to what I would expect of someone with links to that website. I am certainly not making that accusation - just an observation.

It would be most helpful if you could provide verifiable evidence of your claims that this website "scares" students with "horror stories." The entire forum at essayfraud.org has less than 200 posts total and most appear to be anonymous accusations. Nor is any of the information provided on the website verifiable.

The website even has a disclaimer where they "do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any message or complaint!" --ElKevbo 22:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of any link which is relevant, informative, and authoritative, unless it presents an immediate personal danger to someone. To discard a tool because of its potential for abuse would be like taking all the knives out of the kitchen. On the other hand, if you're arguing that this link is not relevent, informative, and authoritative, for example because it's too new or too biased, that could be a legitimate complaint. Pointing to someone's contribution history doesn't prove anything. Deco 21:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. After further research, I do not believe this site is authoritative. Not only do they clearly state that they do not stand behind the claims made on their site (in their disclaimer at the bottom of each page) but they have erroneous and unsupported advice and claims.

For example, their list of "Warning Signs that a Site Hires ESL Writers from Overseas" (let's ignore the fact that the entire "ESL writers from overseas" issue a complete red herring) contains the claims that:

• It's a violation of American copyright law to transfer ownership of copyright. That statement is clearly wrong.
• You can find out when a company was founded by looking at their WhoIs information. This would only tell you when the domain name was first registered. That is clearly a different matter entirely from when the company that currently owns the domain name was founded.

--ElKevbo 22:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I must point out that it is you who is clearly wrong on all three accounts:

1. Like any open forum on the Internet (as well as this very TALK page of Misplaced Pages), the forum owners may choose to communicate that they are not responsible for the comments and opinions of independant Web surfers! This is standard practice. Also, can you tell me exactly how the BBB, complaints.com, FCC, ripoffreport.com, consumeraffairs.com, etc. display the concrete "proof" that you say EssayFraud.org lacks?

I would imagine they conduct actual research. Regardless, how those other organizations operate is not the issue at hand. How essayfrauds.org operates is the issue and I have yet to be convinced that they are an authority on this subject. --ElKevbo 01:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

2. EssayFraud.org refutes the false age claims posted at particular WEB SITES, not the age of the fraudulent parent companies of such sites. Please get your facts straight. You can't keep making false accusations.

The wording on the actual website is confusing. Specifically, it states: "Lies about the age of the site (e.g. 'Since 1998') (Verify the company's true 'Creation Date' by clicking here.)" First off, the statement is inconsistent in that the first sentence is about the "age of the site" but the second sentence is about the "company's true 'Creation Date.'" My point still stands in that the registration date of a particular domain name is neither directly related to the "age of site" nor a "company's true 'Creation Date.'" WhoIs just contains information about that particular domain name. DNS is separate from the content of a website and the company that created it. --ElKevbo 01:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

3. The laws quoted at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html do NOT apply to transfer of term paper copyright to students! You will note that none of the following words appear at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html:

• cheat, college, credit, essay, fraud, grade, graduate, pass, plagiarism, professor, school, student, teacher, term paper, university, write *

Why do none of the afformentioned words appear? Completely separate laws, codes, and statutes govern the sale of academic research materials, that's why. For instance, New Jersey statutes 2A:170-17.16-18 and similar statutes of other states (see list below) not only forbid copyright transfer, but also dictate that essay mills may not offer services to ANY person giving the company ANY reason to believe that he or she intends to wholly or partially submit a purchased paper for academic credit.

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Florida

Illinois

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Nevada

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Texas

Virginia

Washington

I looked up those laws:

• California Cal. Educ. Code §§ 66400- 66405 (1998)
• Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. § 23-4-103 (1997)
• Connecticut (this one has changed since it was cited above - I'm not sure this is the correct statute)
• Florida Fla. Stat. ch. 877.17 (1997)
• Illinois 110 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1 (1998)
• Massachusetts Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 271 §50 (1998)
• Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. § 207.320 (1997 )
• New Jersey 18A:2-3. Preparation, offering for sale of certain documents; penalty (different from listed above)
• New York N.Y. Educ. Law §213-b (1998)
• North Carolina N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-118.2 (1997)
• Virginia Va. Code Ann. §18.2-505 (1998)
• Texas Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.49(1998)
• Pennsylvania 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §7324 (1998)
• Oregon Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.114 (1997)

Unless I missed something, not a single one of those laws has much to say about copyright. In general, they're all laws that make it illegal to sale or aid in the sale of material intended to be used in academic fraud. They certainly do not prohibit transfer of copyright.

Copyright really is only vaguely related to the issue of plagarism. I brought it up only to illustrate a particular fact which essayfraud.org has gotten blatantly wrong. --ElKevbo 01:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo, will EssayFraud.org be "authoritative" enough for you when it is PR6 with 500 posts? Or, how about when it's PR7 with 1,000 posts? Right now, it's PR5 with almost 200 posts. Does that make the site any less original and important? No.

SarahTeach 23:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

(Assuming that by "PR" you are referring to Google PageRank - if my assumption is incorrect, please correct me!) PR is not terribly useful in determining the authoritativeness (is that a word?) of a source. Verifiably correct information is the primary measuring stick for inclusion in Misplaced Pages as a source. Based on what little bit of research I have performed, I don't think this site meets that criteria. --ElKevbo 01:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I appreciate your feedback, but you are misinformed. Plagiarism is often directly related to copyright ownership. A copyright owner would not SUE HIM/HERSELF for copyright infringement. However, a copyright owner is certainly prone to sue the plagiarizer of his/her copyrighted text, correct?

BOTTOM LINE: unless a student personally wrote a given paper (inherently owns the copyright), he or she may NOT turn in that paper for academic credit. Am I not correct in this assertion, ElKevbo? If you acknowledge this fact, then you must also admit that if a student submits for academic credit a paper that he/she BOUGHT from a paper mill, that student will be infringing someone else's copyright and committing academic fraud. Obviously, this directly relates to the copyright issue, in that if a paper mill owner offers to transfer copyright to the student, the paper mill owner is blatantly telling the student that he/she can submit the paper for academic credit! And, of course, that would constitute plagiarism on the student's end! Therefore, copyright ownership and plagiarism are DIRECTLY related in the academic sphere. EssayFraud.org is most definitely an authority in bringing to light this interrelationship, educating people who obviously do not understand, and warning students not to partake in academic fraud.

SarahTeach 02:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement on essayfraud.org that "transfer copyright to the customer against American law" is wrong. This discussion has nothing to do with plagarism and everything to do with incorrect information on the essayfraud.org website. Transferring the copyright may be slimy and immoral in this instance but it's not illegal. If I am wrong and transferring copyright (for the purpose of enabling academic fraud or otherwise) is illegal, please provide evidence as none of your previous assertions have done so. --ElKevbo 03:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not wrong. ElKevbo, do you not see that offering to transfer copyright is part and parcel of "the seller or advertiser or reasonably should have known was intended for submission by a student" (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0877/SEC17.HTM&Title=-%3E2005-%3ECh0877-%3ESection%2017#0877.17)?

Simple equation:

paper mill transferring copyright = paper mill knowing the student plans to plagiarize = ILLEGAL

And do you know WHY certain paper mills offer to illegally transfer copyright? Because their papers are more attractive to students who want to cheat and plagiarize! BINGO. This is the VERY REASON why the term paper statutes were enacted!

SarahTeach 03:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I'm still not seeing in any statute or law that says the act of transferring copyright is illegal, even if it is used to enable academic fraud. I'm certain that transfer of copyright could be used as evidence that "the seller or advertiser or reasonably should have known was intended for submission by a student" but that's very different from stating that "transfer of copyright" is illegal. --ElKevbo 03:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo. Sarah you are confusing laws designed to stop the sale of term papers to students with the right to transfer the copyright of those term papers. Plagiarism and copyright infringement are not the same! This is a moot point anyway. Even if a student were to buy the copyright to a paper he did not write himself, it would still be plagiarism to claim it as his own.

68.184.209.190 04:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "confusing" anything. Read my previous post (04:55, 27 May 2006). SarahTeach 04:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, note that accuracy is not necessarily equivalent with authoritativeness - there's also a component of notability, usefulness, and so on. To me "authoritative" means that it is in some sense the official or original place to find something, like the first publication on a topic, the website itself in an article on a website, or the official webpage of a company, band, author, etc. Generally I prefer an external link to be at least one of notable, accurate, or authoritative. Discussion boards are usually not accurate or authoritative, but are occasionally notable. I'm not sure whether this one is - I had dealings with some pushy board webmasters at nocturnal emission and came to an uneasy compromise when I probably should've just rejected the link. Deco 03:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not basing my request to remove the link based purely on the fact that there is blatantly incorrect information on it. I think it fails most tests for inclusion in a NPOV encyclopedia article as it's just a poor website. There just doesn't appear to be much useful information there other than some bizarre xenophobic claims and unsubstantiated claims and assertions. Maybe I'm just missing all of the good content...? --ElKevbo 04:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, you detractors are not able to grasp the simple concept:

paper mill transferring copyright = paper mill knows the student plans to plagiarize = ILLEGAL

SarahTeach 04:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

First, please keep it civil. Second, there is no transitive law in legal or criminal affairs. If you claim that an act is illegal, then the proper way to support that claim is to either cite a law/statute/treaty/etc. or case law. --ElKevbo 04:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, take your own advice. You've been insulting EssayFraud.org left and right (especially in your previous post). If you insult the site, you know darn well--and so does everyone else--that you are taking a backhanded stab at me. SarahTeach 04:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, if it appears that I have then please accept my apologies. Assume good faith of other wikipedians. --ElKevbo 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, the law is never so simple. It is more like: Paper mill transferring copyright = LEGAL; Paper mill selling paper with or or without copyright transfer knowing the student intends to plagiarize = POSSIBLY ILLEGAL depending on the law of the state. 68.184.209.190 04:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I did cite the laws. I also explained exactly how those laws apply. Once again:

Unless a student personally wrote a given paper (inherently owns the copyright), he or she may NOT turn in that paper for academic credit. Am I not correct in this assertion? If you acknowledge this fact, then you must also admit that if a student submits for academic credit a paper that he/she BOUGHT from a paper mill, that student will be infringing someone else's copyright and committing academic fraud. Obviously, this directly relates to the copyright issue, in that if a paper mill owner offers to transfer copyright to the student, the paper mill owner is blatantly telling the student that he/she can submit the paper for academic credit! And, of course, that would constitute plagiarism on the student's end! Therefore, copyright ownership and plagiarism are DIRECTLY related in the academic sphere. EssayFraud.org is most definitely an authority in bringing to light this interrelationship, educating people who obviously do not understand, and warning students not to partake in academic fraud.

SarahTeach 04:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The "EssayFraud.org" site says "Transfers copyright to the customer (against American law)." Where is a federal law to cover this? Or is there a law in every state? So far you have only given a few states. 68.184.209.190 05:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo, how and where do the BBB, complaints.com, FCC, ripoffreport.com, consumeraffairs.com, etc. display the concrete "proof" that you claim EssayFraud.org lacks? SarahTeach 05:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

BBB, complaints, FCC, and those other websites aren't the topic of conversation. Essayfraud.org is the topic. Let's not stray from that topic, please. --ElKevbo 05:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll make it easy for you--they don't. Why? Privacy issues. What, exactly, must EssayFraud.org do to make you feel as though the complaints are "substantiated?" Should the owners of EssayFraud.org sneak into poster's homes, put a knife to their throats, and force them to post online the actual papers that they ordered? Perhaps their credit card statements and Social Security Numbers? Give me a break. You're being completely unreasonable. SarahTeach 05:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I ask that you maintain civility. --ElKevbo 05:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You've hypocritically come up with an UNSUBSTANTIATED claim about how EssayFraud.org does not verify the complaints. Now, THAT is an unsubstantiated claim. Where's YOUR proof? Do you have access to EssayFraud.org's system? SarahTeach 05:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The claims made by anonymous posters to a forum are unverifiable. They may be true and I'm sure that many of the claims made about people getting ripped off when attempting to commit academic fraud are true (how can you expect the people helping you to cheat and break the law to be honest? Honor among thieves, right?). But there is no evidence publicly presented of the truth of these claims. Nor is there evidence that anyone actually investigates these claims. If there is such evidence, please point it out because I'm missed it. --ElKevbo 05:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave you paper mill supporters now. Perhaps, some day down the road, when you're laying in a hospital bed suffering from post-op complications, you'll find out that your heart surgeon was awarded his license based on a dissertation that he BOUGHT from a paper mill. Maybe then you'll look back and think to yourself, "Ya know, maybe I should have supported EssayFraud.org instead of beating them down for no good reason." SarahTeach 05:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)