Timeline for Obligation to quote source of grammatical knowledge
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 3, 2016 at 11:26 | comment | added | Christian | @Zelphir : For academic norms it's plagarism if you use a source without citing it. There are cases where legal copyright is violated. There are cases like ghostwriting that are academic plagarism but that aren't violating legal copyright. Academic norms are a distinct category from legal norms. They are based on different values and differently enforced. | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 11:00 | comment | added | Zelphir Kaltstahl | Aha, I always thought that by not citing someone and stating ones name as the author of the document, one is claiming to have come up with it oneself, which would be lying and stealing other people's intellectual property, which would be illegal. So that's not how it is then? It might be a very naive view, but that's how I explained it for myself so far. So you're saying, that citing is merely 'being nice' to ones readers? If that's so, where does plagiarism start? | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 10:54 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | To add to this / boil this down: The grammar of a language is nobody’s intellectual property; descriptions, assessments and systematisations of a grammar are. | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 10:50 | history | edited | Wrzlprmft♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Mar 3, 2016 at 10:43 | history | answered | Christian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |