At the turn of the century – oh what a long time ago that
sounds – I was disappointed but hardly shocked to discover that the still
fledgling internet had already spawned a collaborative enterprise in
fraudulently reproducing scholarly work. American students in particular were
setting up file-sharing sites where you could download an academic assignment
and pass it off as your own. They say there is nothing new under the sun, of
course and who amongst us has never copied their homework from a friend?
I found this little truism through a number of sources:
In academia, to copy from one author is
plagiarism, to copy from two is research and to copy from three is considered
original thought. I’d credit this but wouldn’t you know it, I can’t find a
reliable original attribution. And anyway am I just quoting, or am I copying?
Online essay-writing sites have to foil anti-plagiarism software, which
searches for matches in submitted work, but how much do you have to change before a passage passes as original? Such
sites claim they are doing no wrong; they are not copying they claim, simply
providing original work for cash. You may subscribe to the notion that, fair
play or foul, the end result justifies the means, but it is still cheating.
How happy would you be that the surgeon with your organ in his hands cheated his way through school? Or that the engineers who
designed the safety features of your car copied their way to qualification? In
either of those cases, of course you would hope and expect their cheating to be
found out and their abilities to be under constant scrutiny. In exacting
professions you have to be pretty good to foil the system. The same is not true
for all disciplines, however and in many fields of work you could fraudulently
gain your status and never be found out. Economics, politics and the broad and
unspecific field of social ‘sciences’ spring immediately to mind as
mountebank-rich environments.
When marking student assignments it can be depressing to
realise you appear to be marking the same work over and over again. Matching
two identical submissions, in the same format and font is pretty easy to do. When
they are crafty enough to change the original format and rearrange some of the
words it is a relief that, although you know they are all copying from the same
approved source, they have at least made some attempt to assist your collusion
in granting them a pass grade and their signature declaring ‘all-my-own-work’
part-indemnifies you from blame;
Marking multiple submissions of largely the same material
is the lot of educators at a level where independent thinking is neither
expected nor necessary. But from the leaders of the supposedly free world? When
Barack Obama was campaigning for re-election he was fond of saying to business
leaders “you didn’t build that” insisting they acknowledge their debt to
greater society and not claim all the credit for their work. Good line; I
wonder who wrote it? Who knows, it may even have been Obama himself.
Tell us another...
But his little diatribe against a British exit wasn’t all
his own work at all and the sticky fingerprints and marginal notes of the pro-EU establishment were
clearly all over it. He sought to tell a fable of an imagined future outside a
country called Europe; a sorry little tale of trouble and woe. I'll tell you
a story about Jack a Nory... but whose story is it?
A simple explanation for using queue instead of line would be he was writing his speech for a British audience. Maybe that has been said. Although I would not believe it if so.
ReplyDeleteWhat the internet with it's ability to produce much more information than hitherto was possible has done is shone a light on those we consider the great and good. What that light has told us is that most of those we consider to be great and good are not at all. They maybe great in the sense they hold high positions or have celebrity status but they are certainly not good in fact in most cases they are quite evil.
None of us are as pure as the driven snow and we can be as evil but at a lower position and station in life it does not give us the same opportunities as the so called great and good. And they do take advantage of those opportunities which can be seen by the corruption, hypocrisy, deceit and lies they so glibly practice and employ.