High-School Students Take On Turnitin

Huh?

I'm sorry are you really this much of an absolutist??

If a student cuts-and-pastes material from published work, the STUDENT has committed a copyright violation. The idea that the student then gets to claim the derivative (i.e. copied) work is copyrighted to the student is just moronic.

The point I have been trying to make is that your absolute "a right is a right" argument is simplistic and ignores the many nuances of the situation.

The concept of a "right" has become so diluted as people begin claiming everything is a right. Please direct us all to where in the Constitution the right to create intellectual property by appropriating someone else's work is enumerated.

 

I am quite well aware that legislators have routinely limited (or outright abrogated) children's rights throughout history (perhaps because not enough children get out and vote???); however, the fact that something happens does not mean that it should happen. And why do you think that children should not have copyright rights? You also arrogantly act like as if turnitin is a perfect, infallible tool, which is a simply fallacious notion. Turnitin will "detect" as "plagiarism" such things as: (a) facts generally accepted in the field as common knowledge; (b) statements made and properly cited with footnotes; and, (c) with enough of your own previous papers submitted, you can even be found guilty of plagiarizing yourself by continuing to use your same writing style. In short, turnitin is simply the perfect tool for lazy professors who wish to turn off their brains and let a machine do all of their thinking for them. By the way, in the field of history, Frank Vandiver (famous Civil War professor from Texas) and Michael Ventris (decipherer of the Mycenaean Linear B texts) were bothing doing academic publishing in their mid-teens.

 

Then maybe that student's lazy high school teachers should be teaching him/her how to write term papers without plagiarizing and with proper footnoting/endnoting.

 

Well said. It is one more tool in the arsenal of lazy professors who will delivery an "invigorating" power point presentation to their "learners" while utilising Turnitin.com to grade their papers.

My argument is simply that Turnitin.com is illegal and should be shut down. We shut down the original Napster.... file sharing is illegal.... Turnitin.com is not much different than the original Napster. Both sites held a central database of files, except Turnitin.com profits from it!

Admittedly Turnitin.com does not release "files" of documents, but a simple screen capture is easy enough to do...

 

Done here

Thank you Scott and Ted for proving my point so eloquently.

I have repeatedly said that Turnitin's actions are not pure and that some remediation is needed. I have also outlined how I, as an educator, see the service only as a tool, and not an end-all-be-all solution. I've also asked for the discussion to move to a middle ground.

You both have summariliy ignored the content and the context of what I have said, preferring to blather on about the absolute right of students to plagiarise and pretend it is noble copyright protection.

Now it's the teachers fault? Well, apparently both of you weren't paying attention when how to properly analyze and synthesize other's work was taught in school. It seems you did misunderstand when it was taught to avoid ad hominem and false premises.

Not only are your assertions arrogant, but plainly display the ignorance of confirmation bias as well.

Bloviate to your heart's content -- done trying to teach these pigs to sing.

 

Your point, sir, was that mentally lazy educators should use an incredibly flawed tool in order to falsely convict people of plagiarism. Your point, sir, was that children have no rights and should have none. My point, sir, is that educators should either engage their brains (if they have one) or get out of education (if they don't). My point, sir, was that even if you think children ought not to have copyright rights because you think they'll likely never have any use for such, I think that they should quite because of the occasional fourteen-year-olds and sixteen-year-olds like Frank Vandiver and Michael Ventris (and such future teenagers who follow their fine examples) who did, at that tender age, start publishing on Civil War Texas and ancient Greek historical linguistics. You, sir, have been trolling for a fight since you got here.

 

On the contrary, "sir"

... what I have been seeking "since I got here" was an opportunity for honest and open discussion.

Instead, there is far too much parochial bickering, absolute assertions, red herring arguments, and false civility "sir." Two obscure and rare examples do not prove your point, only serve to illustrate how far one has to reach, yet still claim validity.

Again, you, "sir", have misrepresented my points and ignored my suggestions for a middle ground.

Good day to you, "sir"

 

You, "sir," are the one misrepresenting my points. I nev er said that the examples of Frank Vandiver's writings on Civil War Texas or Michael Ventris' writings on Greek historical linguistics having begun when they were in their mid-teens in any way "proves" that all teens write papers of publishable quality or even that they write well. So don't hang me with that red herring about using "obscure and rare examples" to "prove" my point. Again, "sir," every thread you have participated in in your short time on this board has very quickly deteriorated for lack of civility on your part. BRUCE!!!

 

Stunning, simply stunning

It is not a red herring to use one's own words to contradict their point. I asked if the concern for student copyright was overblown given the paucity of published student term papers and you responded with Vandiver and Ventris.

It just boggles my mind that you cannot bear to have anything you've said criticized or challenged, but you will throw out blanket aspersions in the like "lazy high school teachers should be teaching him/her how to write term papers without plagiarizing and with proper footnoting/endnoting" as if this explains your logic in claiming that every student has an absolute right to copyright. (I notice how you pointedly ignored Steve Forester's definition of intellectual property and copyright!)

Odd that you ignore your fingerprints are all over those threads as well.

And who is Bruce?

 

Except that you ignored my point altogether; you did not contradict it. My point was that copyright on student term papers ought to exist because, rare though the likes of Vandiver and Ventris may be, exceptions such as those do exist (and, might I add now, copyrights for teens ought also to exist for those teens who might later make something of themselves and who might someday wish to publish "Early Works of ...").

 

You must, then, boggle your own mind as well.

 

Re-read yourself

That may have been what you wanted your point to be, but that is not what you said!

Perhaps, instead of believing we all understand what's going on in the "great head of Ted" you might actually calm down and say what you mean instead trying to find that great ad hominem zinger and insisting we all know what you meant.

Oh, and since when do the needs (wants) of the few outweigh those of the many? (Seriously, "The Early Works of ... "??) More to the point, how would Turnitin's compiled database preempt a student from doing that, rare though it may be?

 

I have been re-reading, not just myself, but the entire thread. Please check you PM box.

 

NOTE: This was in response to Ted Heiks (post 31): "My point was that copyright on student term papers ought to exist because, rare though the likes of Vandiver and Ventris may be, exceptions such as those do exist (and, might I add now, copyrights for teens ought also exist for those teens who might later make something of themselves and who might some day wish to publish "Early Works of ...")."

Ted Heiks did say (post 22): "And why do you think that children should not have copyright rights?" (sentence 2) and "By the way, in the field of history, Frank Vandiver (famous Civil War professor from Texas) and Michael Ventris (decipherer of the Mycenaean Linear B texts) were bothing [sic] doing academic publishing in their mid-teens." (sentence 6)

Looks like, in this post, I meant to say that teenagers ought to have copyright protection because of the occasional gifted teens like Vandiver and Ventris, but somehow left a mental "disconnect" in getting from point A to point B.

But, Ted Heiks also did say (post 26): "My point, sir, was that even if you think children ought not to have copyright rights because they'll likely never have any use for such, I think they should quite because of the occasional fourteen-year-olds and sixteen-year-olds like Frank Vandiver and Michael Ventris (and such future teenagers who follow their fine examples) who did, at that tender age, start publishing on Civil War Texas and ancient Greek historical linguistics." (sentence 4)

Here, however, it looks like I might have made the point I said (in post 31) I thought I made, but I'm not sure.

 

Am I missing something?

A copyright by definition (American Heritage): "The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work." I'm using this definition from a copyrighted source under the doctrine of "fair use" since it is being done in a limited sense.

What is Turnitin doing? Are they publishing or distributing a student's work? Are they selling a student's work?

Or are they simply saying - that a new student's work happens to match a previous student's work? As I've used Turnitin, they never show me another student's work - they only show me where my current student matches someone else's prior work.

I may be a little dense here - but it sounds like this is much ado about nothing. Perhaps the courts will rule otherwise.

Regards - Andy

 

Synthesis Time

Alright! Some closure of some sort on the topic a chance for synthesis between opposing parties...

First, if you've ever published anything original you know that you want your words to stand untouched for generations. Thus the concept of individual copyright must weigh into the conversation.

Second, if you've ever taught college you know that even if you are very very good and regularily spot-check sentances that don't have the "right" flow or composition, you will miss something somewhere. You might end up giving credit to someone who cheated. We don't want that do we? Therefore the concept of academic honesty is introduced.

Thirdly, if you've ever used a web service like google or econweb to manually find posted work for comparison to essays/papers you're using someone else's work to help you do your work of grading papers. I hope the proper license has been given by the author to publish these posted works. Therefore the concept of simplifying the grading process is introduced.

Fourth, if you've ever used a service like turnitin to rank papers based on likehood of plagerism you're using someone else's work to help you do your work of grading papers. I should hope that the proper license has been granted by the authors to use their copyrighted material in such a way to protect it. Therefore we're looking at simplifying the grading process again.

The whole argument revolves around academic honesty for the legitimate copyright holder, academic honesty for those students trying to plagerize legetimate copy, and simplifying the grading process. Turnitin is simply an automated form of searching the internet for published material.

The only other concept to have some play is the ethical nature of turnitin or a similar service. We would hope that they have some form of internal protection to prevent the selling of prevetted works. They might not. We hope that they would not set up a cycle of academic distrust and dishonesty. They might.

Ultimately we have a social compact around common behaviors.

We need a social compact around academic honesty.

Compact 1: Turnitin (or whatever the service name) will NEVER release copyrighted material in any form with the exception of a breach in the remaining four compacts.
Compact 2: The originating students license Turnitin to store their work in a database for the future protection of the entire academic community.
Compact 3: The teacher must subscribe to Turnitin services.
Compact 4: The progressing student must be bound by the results of Turnitin's service.

If we built these four compacts into the current operations, I believe that services such as Turnitin would thrive.

For myself, I can't believe that the course syllabus didn't specifically and clearly state that all work was to be purblished through turnitin. That's a liability in and of itself. Without making certain that your students know this, it is impossible for the compacts to be established. To protect the originating students from the feeling of fear about any loss of copy protection of their work, the company must certify that works will only be released in the event of a breach of contract (i.e. if someone claims that turnitin is not working properly). Perhaps we could fix this by holding the comparison services inside turnitin. Then the document would never leave turnitin even in the event of a discrepancy.

I wouldn't get upset about it this discussion. Everyone has words that mean something and should be protected. It doesn't matter how young or old, or educated or uneducated. Everyone should be protected in their speech.

The core question revolves around whether the company and the teacher ensured that the originating student knew that their work was to be published in a "black box" comparison service and how secure this service is.

If the work was published without the student's express agreement, then we have a fight on our hands.

The service appears to be sound should everyone uphold their parts of the agreement.

Sincerely,
Jacob Metro, MBA

 

Thank you Jacob

That was all I was ever trying to say.