I wonder if this idea might also be useful for subjects besides technical writing.

There is a trend in pop culture to see technology as a dangerous thing, (e..g. the show Black Mirror) which I feel like is unfair. Technology is neither completely bad or good. It just is.

Studying English has definitely taught me that writing is social. My best writing is my best because multiple eyes have scanned it. John Donne says "no man is an island", well neither is an essay.

I sometimes struggle with deciding what to cite in a paper. What counts as "common knowledge"? Here is an article talking about common knowledge and what sort of information does not need to be cited: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page342055

Here is a short article that talks about patchwriting in more detail: https://www.poynter.org/2012/patchwriting-is-more-common-than-plagiarism-just-as-dishonest/188789/ They give an example of patchwriting,however, they are a little bit judgmental about the practice, which this article seems to be saying the opposite: that we should realize that what we consider plagiarism is complicated, especially in technical communications.

It seems arbitrary to set the number at 10 percent.

I like the use of gender-neutral language.

The STC's online magazine Intercom has a column about ethics scenarios in technical communication. They are interesting, but unfortunately you have to be a member to read them.

Here is an article that goes into more detail about fair use and copyright: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

I feel like the internet also keeps people from plagiarizing, as all an instructor has to do to check if they got it online is type it into google.

Hmmm sounds like our class project for Georgia Child Care Association.

Classroom peer editing let's students prevent what may be a case of plagiarism before a teacher makes the final decision

Usually the best ways to solve problems is to talk about them. Expressing feelings or concerns through words is a way of showing concern of an issue.

Dr. Wharton said we will go over these policies so we can be aware of do's and don'ts of a tech writer.

All I can say about this is Wikipedia. When I was younger using Wiki for looking up information was the go to site. As I got older I learned Wiki allowed people to edit information on their site, which made the content some what untrustworthy.

All authors should give credit where it's due. Listening to a song the other day I realized the artist stole the beat from another artist's original song. This made me skeptical of the music industry as a whole.

Not all authors compose original content. Some authors take things learned from prior knowledge and put it into their work. I wonder if that is plagiarism to some extent?

I agree 100% with this statement. Different cultures have different understandings and ways of acknowledging ownership.

"Turnitin.com" has become a faster more convenient way for teachers to check for plagiarism among students. I remember my English 1 teacher threatened to fail me because she thought I plagiarized but "turnitin.com" had my back.

A constant warning on every syllabus students receive at the beginning of all classes. The same warning can be most likely found under academic honesty policy.

All and all this article was much more easy to follow than Herrington's for me personally because I am able to follow it better. Though it did not lack in information that Herrington also had. Both were beyond informative on both plagiarism and copyright, these are such important matters for writers, not just ethnical communicators. For college students, I think that it is important to address both of these laws, because without them we are clueless in knowing what we can do with others writing and what protects our own writing.

Overall throughout the article I found myself agreeing with everything that Reyman had to say. Plagiarism in schools is something different from the workplace and is something that needs to be revised in the classroom. Watching the potential affects that plagiarism can have on not just yourself but the people involved is a very serious and important thing that needs to be taught.

I really agree with what Reyman is stating here like I said before, this is something that teachers should consider to take into mind. Students aren't made aware of this information until they are pushed out of college and into the real world. They need to be taught by those who know what it is like out there and who know this information. Plagiarism is not something to be taken lightly, neither in school or work, but the teachers need to help students to further understand their abilities of what they are able to do and not do.

I think this is something that should really be changed and addressed as Reyman states here. It can be extremely confusing for students, myself included, when we are taught for so long never to take someone else's work unless being referenced, even changing around words can be considered plagiarism. But it is a tricky thing to be taught. You don't want to just say to children "Oh this is only in school" because that can be taken way out of context. I think at a certain age, they need to be taught the differences between school plagiarism and workplace plagiarism and save the many headaches that I have had myself on the matter.

As a college student, this would have caused a many much stress and fear of the internet if this was true. But with the way the copyright works there is fair use of the work that is displayed to the public as Herrington discusses. We are permitted use this work.

As we discussed in Herrington's article, there are many different complications and restrictions that come to copyright and what can equal as plagiarism in a work.

This is something that I had great confusion going into my internship where I was handling content writing. I would research information for them and then I would take the information that I had researched and compile it into a article for them. At first I thought this was plagiarism but by referencing the work, as I was taught in class, and used the work as my own, it wasn't plagiarism.

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 strict definition of plagiarism leaves no breathing room for work that is derivative of another work, but in a way that expands upon the original's ideas rather than simply taking credit for them.

If the purpose and character of the use is comment or criticism than I imagine it is protected under the 1st Amendment. Whereas, if you are reproducing it for resale, that the use is intellectual property theft, plain and simple. These four factor can be very helpful when discriminating what is criticism protected under freedom of expression from what is simply a re-purposing of owned work.

The concept of "re-usability" in technical writing is an interesting one. The concept itself seems to be an issue of plagiarism, but it is actually an important factor of strong technical writing. In political research studies, a study is deemed to be "progressive" if it builds upon a previous finding or concept, rather than reiterating it. As in political research, technical writers must do the same. In order to produce "progressive" text or media that expands the body of knowledge in a particular area, they must build upon the information that has already been presented by others. In failing to do so, they are only repeating already-known information and not increasing usability or information on a subject. Thus, re-usable technical writing is vital to the continuation of strong technical communication.

Boilerplates are an interesting and overlooked way that text is re-used in work settings in ways that would fall outside the parameters of traditional ideas about plagairism. A real-world example of a boilerplate would be sample bequest language. Oftentimes, nonprofit organizations will include sample bequest language that can be copied verbatim when an individuals makes a bequest in their last will and testament. It is extremely common to see identical sample bequest language in different sources, but it is accepted as text that is standard enough to be directly copied. There is no stated author or copyright on this form of boilerplate language. The challenge for students and technical communicators is in determining which texts are accepted as standard, especially outside of legal texts like bequest language.

If a contracted writer wanted to include their work in a portfolio, would they have a right to do so, or are they technically plagiarizing the legal (but not actual) author of the work?

Here is an infographic that displays some of the guidelines that students are taught to follow in order to not plagiarize. A major problem displayed in the infographic is the fact that there is no reference to copyright and intellectual property laws, or the fair use doctrine. Instead, it is ingrained in the minds of students that they should avoid plagiarism, "cherry picking," and "copycatting" at all costs. http://thevisualcommunicationguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Infographic_Did-I-Plagiarize1.jpg

In order for students to understand ethical practices that involve reusing others' work, they need to understand the fair use doctrine. In Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects, the authors describe "fair use" as a doctrine that allows individuals to use excerpts of authors' work without permission under certain circumstances. If the author using others' work is doing so for educational purposes, which is the case in students' work, it is typically determined to be fair use. However, one must also consider whether the copyrighted work being used is factual, how much is being used, and how widely distributed the new use of the copyrighted work may be. The closer a text utilizing others' work follows these criteria, the more likely it is to be declared as fair use.

Arola, C. (2014). Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects.

In Wickman's "Wicked Problems in Technical Communication", the author discusses the importance of students collaborating in order to tackle the "wicked problem" of the Gulf Oil Spill. In that context, the collaboration was helpful because students came from a variety of disciplines. Here, student writers enter a "discourse community" within a single area of study, but the general benefit applies. Although a student might using resources centered on a single topic, they would still come from a variety of viewpoints and research paradigms. For example, one author may have focused on positivist, quantitative research, while another may have focused on anti-positivist, qualitative research, which would produce different results, despite focusing on the same subject.

Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked Problems in Technical Communication. Journal Of Technical Writing & Communication, 44(1), 23-42.

As noted in Herrington's "Copyright, Free Speech, and Democracy", there are other implications for technical communicators when authorship is determined to be an employer and not an individual. She notes that in cases of corporate authorship, the work is not granted the same copyright protections as work produced by individuals (in the legal sense, as corporation-authored work is often created by individuals too). In this case, a technical writer working for an employer would not be able to make copyright or authorship claims for his or her work, as the employer has the final say over content and modes of production.

Herrington, TyAnna. "Copyright, Free Speech, and Democracy: Eldred v. Ashcroft and Its Implications for Technical Communicators." Technical Communication Quarterly 20.1 (2011): 47-72. Web.

A tool to help students understand sharing and "nuanced understandings of technical ownership" could potentially be the use of the Creative Commons, as described in Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects. In using the Creative Commons, students can practice curating texts and documents that derive from a variety of sources, without having to adhere to fair use doctrine and copyright rules. According to their website, the Creative Commons unlocks the "full potential of the internet to drive a new era of development, growth and productivity," which falls in line with general goals of technical communicators. In using the Creative Commons as a learning tool, students can become comfortable with the non-linear, collaborative techniques utilized in technical communication and workplace settings. It would also prepare students for when they are required to adhere to the fair use doctrine, as they would already be well-versed in re-using media and texts. For more on the Creative Commons, visit their website here: https://creativecommons.org/

Arola, C. (2014). Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects.

It this scenario is a great example of how technical writers often rescind ownership of the work and credit is instead granted to whoever contracted them.

This Idea is addressed at the beginning of the paper, with reference to "honorary authorship."

Whether done in a group or alone, single sourcing positions the writer as not only an author, but as a content manager. Technical communicators must work as content managers to not only present text in a way that best addresses a rhetorical situation, but to also creatively organize and manage content to effectively fit within several documents simultaneously. Technical communicators must consider which information should be emphasized or understated, and what kinds of content are best suited for certain modes and mediums.

I believe this is central to helping students understand plagiarism. As I mentioned at the beginning of the article, students are taught to fear plagiarism above all else. Because fear of plagiarism is so instilled in students, it becomes difficult for them to transition from an academic setting to the workplace, especially when they engage in technical communication. One of the most effective concepts within modern technical communication is the collaborative, "re-using," and re-purposing approach that contrasts academic writing. Discussing plagiarism as a part of a larger conversation about copyright, authorship and fair use would allow students to better understand why it is so important for authors to be given credit for their work as well as how fair use doctrine can aid in the creation of multimodal, effective technical documents and media.

I like that Reyman noted that certain activities in technical "require" copying and re-use of previous work. In terms of research papers, good resources give a paper credibility and strengthen an argument. For technical communicators, using and re-purposing existing materials creates rhetorically stronger and better informed content. For example, when technical communicators create documents in order to increase product usability, they can reference and build upon the work of previous technical communicators. At the same time, they can use previous work to identify weaknesses that have led to poor usability, thus ensuring that their work is the best possible route towards increased usability.

The lack of academic discussion on the topic of plagiarism demonstrates how much influence the concept of original ownership has over the academic world.

The fact that a new definition of plagiarism cannot be instituted on a departmental level really accentuate how removed academic plagiarism is from professional plagiarism.

Scenarios would make an excellent addition to the investigation of plagiarism as they recognize that different situations come with different expectations of what is considered ethical reuse.

What is considered plagiarism in an academic setting and what is considered plagiarism in a professional setting differs greatly. Teaching plagiarism in this consistently single-minded way may leave students unprepared for adherence to professional standards.

This relates back to the other reading which, at one point, addresses the purpose of copyright law and a public domain.

While copyrights exist to incentivize to creation of new ideas after a while the ideas are added to the public domain (the enormous collection of older works to which everyone has a right to access and reproduce). "Common Knowledge" is an blanket term for that which is in a sort of informal public domain.

Whereas, in an academic context, writing is an exercise meant to demonstrate one's comprehension of a course's content, in a technical writing context writing is an instrument by which information is condensed into a simple and easily shared and reproduced format.

It makes sense that in one scenario making reusable content is frowned upon, and in another it is practically expected.

I have actually never heard of single sourcing so of course I went to look up exactly what it meant which it first came up about using a single supplier. Which I realized had nothing to do with what was being discussed. Then I found the definition of single sourcing publishingis a content management method which allows the same source content to be used across different forms of media and more than one time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_source_publishing

I am really glad that they brought that situation up, because there are many instances that can be considered plagiarism but aren't addressed as so. Like ghostwriting, it a very tricky situation that you have to determine whether it is plagiarism or not. Many people think that ghostwriting is a form of plagiarism, but that isn't the case when the ghostwriter themselves are knowingly writing these texts.http://bowvalleycollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=10237&p=2276021

The definition of ghost writing is: to write (something, such as a book) for someone else using that person's name http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghostwrite

This is a very serious matter, especially for english majors with in universities ad colleges. Many students have fears of stealing others works. It is a nerve wracking process, and many use plagiarism checkers online to make sure that nothing it taken from other authors and writers. Many writers criticized and black listed for plagiarism.

This tenant of teaching Plagiarism Awareness to students in Technical Writing is focused on definition (Visit Harrington p. 48 for concrete discussion of legal definitions). By getting students to be aware of the different perspective of who an "author" means, it creates a different idea of content created and whether you have control over your final product. The largest example of this section to facilitate understanding that the creator of content is not always the author is Writing for Hire. In this case, the material does not belong to any given creator, but rather to the company or product it was created for. To help students frame what the boundaries of plagiarism are, Reyman gives these four considerations (65):

1. The purpose and character of the use
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portionused
4. The effect on the potential market for the work

Research on this topic is only founded and enforced by combining the universes of academia and workforce. This discussion will create more foundation indicators and expectations for reusing work, and would do wonders for removing the stigma attached to reusing work. Ultimately, there should be more interaction and awareness in the academic community about the modern uses of information.

I wonder if the school policies around the country are like those in Georgia, where the code of ethics includes strict plagiarism terms. In our common case, it becomes difficult to clearly and uniformly handle plagiarism for your class. I wonder how much of the confusing and vague plagiarism dialogue is pushed by the governing bodies of the school to enforce a definition that allows a more systematic way of handling students.

Scenarios help illustrate the grey nature of plagiarism. The brand of plagiarism changes with any given situation, and often mocks the scenarios of many ethical conundrums. Ultimately, it becomes skewed by intent and practice.

In order to correctly understand and contribute to the creative community, the discussion of re-use is necessary. There is more to plagiarism beyond reusing material, it encompasses intent, audience, the field's given experience, and consideration of the end product. It could be that using other work is not plagiarism because the end product is unique and original content.

This conflict is an ever present debate in our public schools: Should we inform students more on real world practices or should we instruct principles that are the rooted theories of the expectation in the real world? Again, we see educational pedagogies, particularly influenced by Pablo Freire, find roots within Technical Writing and training.

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.

It is important to recognize the timing of this section (2007) and the modern attempts to rectify these issues. Now it is incredibly easy to search for commercially or educationally safe images for presentation and use by simply checking a box on most image searches (i.e google presentation image search). As far as copying and pasting sections into a project to pass as original work, that hasn't worked in years. There are checking sites, which are previously mentioned in this article, as well as the availability of the internet for the reviewers. It's far easier to detect information that is inserted into a project than it is to make your entire project sound the same as copied material without seeming plagarized.

Again, we're revisiting the idea that traditional forms of plagarism are always with unethical intent and outcome. This seems to be the overarching theme of the source materials in this article, which the author argues against.

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."

This is an interesting thought, considering the internet has curated a boom of user-generated content.

This conclusion succintly ties up the issues brought up in the previous annotation. There are grey areas that make up reusing information such as intent and purpose. Rhetorically, this is a complcated issue because of the ultimate goal of communicating to an audience. Is there an inherent negative to communicating to your audience with avenues that are already successful?

At this point, the arguement seems to be more about the moral meaning of theft. This particular sentence mentions the inherent understanding that plagarism is unethically intended.

This piece is an important thought process through the reflection of ownership and plagarism outside of the acedemic context because the rules are not always spelled out. The practices of using materials become complicated across fields as citing sources become more difficult with multiple authors and mediums.

When it comes down to who owns material, is it who the material was created for or the original author? Perhaps each party has rights to the material, which complicates the issue of plagarism and content control

This is a major component of understanding the complexities of plagarism in Technicial Writing. Reusability of your material does not mean that you, the author, will be reusing it... It could be completely detached from you in the future, melded into a new piece.

Technical writing is more about catering to the clients' needs than the acedemic emphasis of creating unique content. Many of us have experienced this difference in our projects this semester. Many groups are repackaging the information we were already given-- and are even manipulating layouts given to us. In an acedemic setting, this is a pretty clear case of plagarism, but in the technical writing world this is an inevitable way to efficiently do your job.

Again, this position is experienced through our Service Learning Projects. At first, we all experienced the individual aspect of curating work with our pitch presentation. Now, as we are venturing into the deliverable phase of the project, we are utilizing different members to create well rounded material. This can clearly complicate the ideas of plagarism, as we all are working on the same piece in our portfolios.