11-13-2009, 06:17 PM
Quote:Hi,
The old saw goes: "If you copy from one source, it's plagiarism; if you copy from many, it's research." Thus, your argument logically leads to the abolishment of all sources, since one can plagiarize from any of them. No, the problem is laziness on the parts of the teachers (it takes a lot of work to determine if something is plagiarized) and the attitude that some things need to be hard.
If children can use Wikipedia, the teachers job to find out if something is plagiarized* is easy....because 9 out of 10 will have used wikipedia. So this case is not about teachers laziness.
And wikipedia is not just the source. It contains high school paper size articles with a nice introduction, summary, and paragraph structure, perfect for copy pasting. We are talking about childrens reports....the saying you quote for sure doesn't have that in mind.
Anyway, I am still waiting for shoju's answer on the question, why exactly wikipedia could not be used.
Quote:If you are talking about learning arithmetic, then I agree with you although many others don't. If you are really speaking of mathematics, then the use of calculators doesn't matter.Yes I meant arithmetics. Of course you can use a calculator in more complicated stuff.
And returning to the Wiki question, yes, I did reference two Wiki articles. Each addresses the properties of the word I used in the link. And both are very accurate. Consider that a practical refutation.
--Pete
* I would just use copied in the case of childrens reports:)