Implied authorship is often times more important for technical writers. The "implied" author is typically the company for which they work for, or create content for. Ownership also usually falls under the company's property, unless otherwise specified. On the contrary, the technical writer that produces the content is the actual author and producer of the material. Even though the technical writer might not always be seen as the sole author or implied author of the content they create, they still hold an amount of representation for themselves and authorship for their portion of the content they create.

A summary:

This article was mainly about the distinctions to be made for plagiarism -- specifically drawing distinctions between academic and workplace settings. Plagiarism is a lot more complex outside of the academic scope of our lives. In an academic setting, students and instructors are taught to be vigilant and hyper-aware towards plagiarism. In an academic setting reusing materials is almost always to be avoided; however, in the workplace, reusing materials is more appropriate (especially for technical communicators and other content creators). In a work setting reusing materials and collaborating for creation of content is cost effective and time efficient. In an academic setting, reusing materials is likely to cause negative consequences.

In this article, Reyman makes a point on the importance of authorship, and how authorship is also a complex term when it comes to a workplace setting. Like we have learned in class through lecture and text materials, there is often an intended author and an actual author. The intended author is usually the company that the technical communicator creates content for. This type of complex authorship relationship lends to reusing materials in the workplace an acceptable thing. Materials such as templates, style sheets, and logos are all things that the company has to reuse to maintain its appearance. It would not be beneficial for the company to constantly re-invent itself (though sometimes re-invention is necessary depending on special circumstances like appealing to a new user base for example).

This connects to Herrington's "Copyright, Free Speech, and Democracy: Eldred v Ashcroft and Its Implications for Technical Communicators." If the copying and re-use is appropriate (and proper ownership is attributed) then it is okay under copyright.

Herrington, T. (2011). Copyright, free speech, and democracy: Eldred v. ashcroft and its implications for technical communicators.Technical Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 47-72

I slightly disagree with the correlation between Internet and plagiarism. I feel like students get in trouble with Internet sources because of improper citations/reference to ownership. To combat this, students should become more familiar on how to attribute ownership. To combat this, I agree with Reyman later in the paper under the Plagiarism and the Internet header later in this article. She mentions the need for the issue to be addressed in textbooks. More information should be available to students on how to combat plagiarism.

How we approach technical writing can also be applied to creative/fiction writing. Both reuse material and remix texts. Genres in both types of writing are constantly be reused, remixed, and reformatted to generate a stronger user/reader base.

This is something I have never considered before. Do different cultures see ownership and plagiarism differently?

Different disciplines, which could be extrapolated to be a culture (?), have different standards when it comes to showing ownership. that is why we have different style guides and manuals like MLA, APA. Chicago style, AP, etc.

I like how this article makes many contrasting points between the academic context of plagiarism and the technical communication context of plagiarism. This passage is another contrasting point.

Information reused, or used in multiple ways would more often than not be a no-no in the academic context. One cannot even reuse their own work in a different way than originally intended (say, a student writes a paper in a class and wants to use the same paper in another class). Reusing one's own work is known as self-plagiarism, or double-dipping for slang terminology.

Honorary authorship relates to what we are doing now in our service learning projects.

Think about authorship as larger entity. Many technical communicators create content that represents the company, and presents the company as the author of the work. It is important for us to consider representing the company(or client) as the author versus presenting ourselves as the author; while still representing ourselves in our work.

Plagiarism. (n.d.) In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.gsu.edu/view/Entry/144939?redirectedFrom=plagiarism#eid

"The action or practice of taking someone else's work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one's own; literary theft"

Plagiarism is something colleges and universities are increasingly vigilant about. Even Georgia State University (GSU) has a reference to their academic honor code included in every syllabus for every class that a student attends.

The phrase "single sourcing" is also unfamiliar to me (from my disciplinary focus in school and work context so far), it looks like single sourcing is an important activity for technical writers and those that work in a corporate industry. I found a website that I think explains the concept well. It allows workers to reuse information and materials without plagiarism consequences, and it also allows companies to save some funds by being able to reuse materials.

I think this is an interesting term, I have never seen it used outside of a laboratory discipline; it seems to be a slang term for formulaic writing. After seeing the definition this context makes sense to me, it would be standardized sections, or as the bullet says, a template of sorts.

Boilerplate. (n.d.) In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com.ezproxy.gsu.edu/view/Entry/21014?redirectedFrom=boilerplate#eid17056945

Stereotyped or formulaic writing

I can see how sites like this can be beneficial; however, I think it is more beneficial for the student to have a basis of knowledge on how to properly give reference or citation to the work they incorporate into their academic papers (by using the appropriate style manual of their discipline). Human working knowledge is more malleable than Internet service knowledge; sites and information on the Internet can be misleading or misunderstood. I think sites like this should be used as a supplement, not as something students depend on to combat plagiarism.

I haven't seen any of my peers face public criticism, but the most recent news coverage I have seen dealing with plagiarism was in regards to Melania Trump (during her speech back in July 2016) when news journalists compared her speech to first lady Michelle Obama's speech from 2008.

Here is a Time article about the situation that occurred: http://time.com/4413098/melania-trump-speech/

Another interesting point to consider with this plagiarism issue is the complex role of authorship. Melania did not write the speech (the speech writer did); however, Melania and Donald Trump are the ones who ended up looking bad as the situation unfolded. With that said, this situation illustrates the importance of revision and draft checks before delivering a product (in this case a speech) to a large user base. It is a situation that we as technical writers and students can learn from: we must check and re-check our drafts before we give our audience (specifically our service learning clients) final pieces for submission.

Reference the plagiarism section in Georgia State University's policy on academic honesty: http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwfhb/sec409.html

Section 409.02.A: "Plagiarism is presenting another person's work as one's own. Plagiarism includes any paraphrasing or summarizing of the works of another person without acknowledgment, including the submitting of another student's work as one's own. Plagiarism frequently involves a failure to acknowledge in the text, notes, or footnotes the quotation of the paragraphs, sentences, or even a few phrases written or spoken by someone else. The submission of research or completed papers or projects by someone else is plagiarism, as is the unacknowledged use of research sources gathered by someone else when that use is specifically forbidden by the faculty member. Failure to indicate the extent and nature of one's reliance on other sources is also a form of plagiarism. Any work, in whole or in part, taken from the Internet or other computer-based resource without properly referencing the source (for example, the URL) is considered plagiarism. A complete reference is required in order that all parties may locate and view the original source. Finally, there may be forms of plagiarism that are unique to an individual discipline or course, examples of which should be provided in advance by the faculty member. The student is responsible for understanding the legitimate use of sources, the appropriate ways of acknowledging academic, scholarly or creative indebtedness, and the consequences of violating this responsibility."