|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re^5: How should Perlmonks deal with Plagiarism?by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Oct 09, 2006 at 04:01 UTC||Need Help??|
I am no longer talking about anything that has happened on PerlMonks.
Neither was I. I referred explicitely and exclusively to the example in your post.
For example, sometimes students will copy each other's homework
Your earlier post said
Teachers will get upset if you do *not* plagiarize.
Are you suggesting that if the student *doesn't* copy someone elses homework they would be penalised? Wouldn't that lead to the ludicrous situation whereby the (one) student(s) that produced the work (was)were penalised, whilst everyone else that copied them got a good grade?
I think the point is that your suggestion that "foreigners are taught to cheat" is based, at best, on misinformation. There are societies and cultures where collaborative effort between students in the completion of coursework is allowed and encouraged; but in those places, coursework usually plays no role in the final grading for the course, which is based entirely upon end-of-course examinations or similar.
What is interesting is that it goes well beyond "homework problems". What happens when some company steals your technological innovation and pass it off as their own? I can think of one country in particular that is dealing with serious patent issues.
Again, you are drifting away from the subject (plagiarism). Ripping off movies, music & games (tapes, cds, dvds); designer label cloths, accessories, perfumes; software; car, motor cycles and aircraft spares; and almost any other "proprietary" product you care to mention is just as rife in the West as anywhere else on earth. It tends to be less in-your-face in the West than elsewhere, as the laws against exist and are actively patrolled, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Nor does it mean that it is condoned or societally acceptable in those other cultures. However, there are countries and cultures where the idea of restricting the use of knowledge, to the "owners" of that knowledge; and so ensuring premium prices for the products derived from that knowledge is, or has formally been an anathema. In communist, and communistic societies, knowledge was (and some places is) seen as being for the common good. And it is an inherent aim of those systems to utilise all knowledge as widely as possible to reduce the overall cost of the benefits derived from it, to the advantage of all society. The people own everything in equal measure.
Of course, history has shown that it doesn't appear to work too well in practice, but there are plenty of bits of Western culture that despite being enshrined in law, don't work too well either.
It's interesting that the "artists" producing mass producible works like books, films, music etc. are currently able to make large fortunes from their endeavours and Western law enshrines, pursues and prosecutes their right to do so, often at the expense of the public purse. And many people here seem (at least publicly) to support this.
And yet, many of those same people are in favour of their own mass producible, "works of art" (code), being donated to the public good.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.