• Allonzee@lemmy.world
      5·
      10 hours ago

      An old professor of mine would be very angry with Nathan. We had a big disagreement about whether using parts of your own prior work was plagiarism.

        • Allonzee@lemmy.world
          3·
          2 hours ago

          “Self-plagiarism is fraud and goes against the core principles of ethical writing. Papers are assigned for students to demonstrate evidence of learning. If a paper is reused from a previous class, the student is not demonstrating new learning.”

          https://azhin.org/cummings/plagiarism/self#:~:text=Self-plagiarism is fraud and,is not demonstrating new learning.

          Gemini AI’s pro argument that self plagiarism is a problem: Misrepresents effort: It’s an act of trying to pass off old writing as new and original. Misleads readers: It can mislead readers, colleagues, or supervisors who expect fresh insights and updated information.

          These are consistent with my old philosophy of law Professor’s opinion on the subject, but other academics I’ve discussed it with since seem kind of split.

          • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
            3·
            3 hours ago

            I appreciate your response.

            I don’t consider that plagiarism, it’s just not original thought and goes against the spirit of assignments. Can I go back in time and get the approval of younger me to use my work, no, but that’s a ridiculous bar to set. I define plagiarism as using someone else’s work without giving proper credit for their contribution in your work/thought process.

            Also, in terms of growth, students may grow over time, but if the assignment isn’t the same under the same conditions, you may simply be sampling someone’s work when they got more rest, had more time to devote to an assignment, or just knew more about the topic already. In other words, they may not have grown and the sampling was more favorable for them the second time.

            When I evaluate students/colleagues, I look at mastery of the material. Do they show a working knowledge of the subject? Can they make important distinctions? Can they synthesize multiple parts to make an effective argument? In my field, those are the people who shine.