@ff524 Interesting. That "or without attribution" part of the definition means that any reproduction where the author is unknown is considered plagiarism. Would it make idioms forbidden in academic papers?

@Fax Not really. It just means "don't make something seem original when it isn't." If an author is unknown, you cite whatever you do know about the source

And is something is widely known and won't be presumed to be original (e.g. common knowledge) it doesn't require a citation at all

I think that there is an implied "(when attribution would normally be expected)" in that definition, i.e. "use the work of another without attribution (when attribution would normally be expected)"

@CcDd No matter how many times you say "without theft it isn't plagiarism", I'm afraid that is inconsistent with both (1) many definitions of plagiarism, and (2) many academic standards of what constitutes plagiarism. I can't see how it's helpful to the OP of the question or to anyone else, to insist on a narrow definition of plagiarism that is not universally accepted.

@CcDd Perhaps your approach would be more credible if you could show that the narrower definition of plagiarism you insist on is generally accepted in the academic world.

For example, if you could link to web pages of a bunch of universities that say that using someone else's work with their consent but without attribution (e.g. buying a paper and handing it in as your own) is not plagiarism. But I don't think that narrow definition is accepted in academia, so I doubt you'll find many.

If you can't show that the definition you insist on using is the same as the definition that the rest of academia uses... then it's just not very useful for answering a question on academia.

I think the Cambridge definition comes closest to what is considered plagiarism in academic contexts: "to use another person’s idea or a part of that person's work and pretend that it is your own". What the OP in this question is asking about certainly qualifies as plagiarism according to this Cambridge definition.

@ff524 @Fax @ff524 yes really it would make idioms forbidden, along with nearly everything else, if you use acidemias incorrect definition. Not to mention people who have proofreaders, typists, translators, etc. are all plagiarists because it's not their writing. It is absolutely in line with the definition of plagiarism I have shown with the links you provided why. The academic standards have to do with citing work and the word plagiarism is demonizing enough to get everyone to follow.

@ff524 This does not mean they are following the proper definition and over the years that definition has been mostly unthought of with everyone parroting the same thing. That is what I am getting at. And sure you can find all sorts of definitions for everything but if we believed them all then the world is both heating up cooling down doing nothing at all with us causing all the problems and none at the same time. but when we get rid of all the fluff and misinformation we find

@ff524 its roots are firmly embedded in stealing. This is also why there are not going to be any links to any universities stating the actual definition partly as you touched on they don't accept it and there are plenty of people that don't accept global warming. it does not mean much. It is not about answering all plagiarism questions it was about answering Mark's question which was very specific. And everyone parroted "yes it's plagiarism" which in his very specific scenario it is in fact not.

@ff524 The thing that gets me is nobody actually looked it up they all just assumed. the correct answer is "no that is not plagiarism but you would be wise to cite your work anyway as not citing will almost definitely cause problems." That would be a proper answer.

@CcDd It sounds like your have just decided what definition you want everyone else to follow, even though the rest of the academic community has settled on a different one, and insist that makes them wrong. Why are they wrong? They are correct according to well-accepted definitions, such as the one in the Cambridge dictionary.

Even if plagiarism started as a behavior related to stealing, its meaning can evolve (as most words do), and that doesn't make the currently accepted meaning wrong.

So I just hear you insisting over and over that everyone else is wrong, but you haven't given any reason why. The definition of plagiarism that includes theft is not more "correct" than the one that doesn't.

@ff524 @ff524 I have not just "decided on a definition" I am using the definition. Also the same can be said about your posts especially since I pointed out the reasons the definition is worded the way it is. All of them do include theft taking using and none have "given to to use as your own" That is the distinction.

@CcDd you're the one that decided that some commonly accepted definitions, like the one Cambridge dictionary gives, are "wrong". Why is that definition wrong?

@ff524 lets take the cambridge definition "to use another person’s idea or a part of that person's work and pretend that it is your own" it states "use" not "was given to as your own". This distinction is important because if you as a disabled or nonnative speaking person or need a proofreader or translator then by your definition this would be the other persons "work" especially in cases of translating or proofreading. That's my point it's in line with the OP's question and it's very important.

If I say "I used her computer to write that document", it doesn't tell you whether she said I could use it or whether I used it without her permission, for example

@ff524 their definition is not wrong but how everyone is interpreting it is wrong. The otehr definitions are either take steal or the like which makes the use of "use" more on the non consent side of things. But regardless you would then be using the translators work and therefore plagiarising it.

@CcDd generally, academics consider it proper to disclose the contributions of a translator. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You can use a translator; you just have to acknowledge it, to avoid giving the impression that the translation is original.

@ff524 not acknowledging someone is not plagiarism, it is plainly a failure to acknowledge someone. from plaigiarism.org "In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward" from dictionary.com "an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:"

@ff524 from marriam webster "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source" and "to commit literary theft" I have lots more if you need

@CcDd now you're just going back to picking the definitions that include theft and ignoring the ones that don't

@ff524 so academia is simply using it incorrectly. No I'm not those are the definitions. I can also say you were doing the same.

@ff524 just all of yours also supported what I am talking about.

@CcDd I'm not saying that either definition is wrong. There are multiple definitions, and they don't all support your view. And the ones that don't are not "incorrect"

@ff524 I am waiting to see a definition that doesn't support the definition as I have stated

@CcDd The Cambridge definition doesn't say anything about "theft" or "consent", as I pointed out

It is not specific with respect to ownership. If you use something - whether given to you or not - without attribution, it is plagiarism (according to that definition)

@ff524 the mere act of claiming it is yours or passing it off as your own is a form of taking without consent. I pointed out why it most certainly is about taking without consent. That is also just a single source.

@CcDd I don't see anything in the definition that implies "without consent"

"to use another person’s idea or a part of that person's work and pretend that it is your own" - where does it say "use without consent"?

Similarly, American Heritage Dictionary: "To present another's words or ideas as one's own or without attribution" - nothing about permission.

I don't really feel like discussing this further, because you don't seem to be open to discussion. But you might want to think about this some more on your own.

@ff524 here is the definition again "to use another person’s idea or a part of that person's work and pretend that it is your own" the thesaurus gives a whole bunch of theft forgery bootleg etcetera for this word on their website, and "pretend it is your own" is not possible when it IS your own. That is ownership and the OP's question was specific about being given something to claim as their own