Blog 10/8

Plagiarism is the outright coping of another's work with out stating the true author, for the sole purpose of not doing the work yourself. By this definition accidental plagiarism should be considered different then intentional plagiarism. Although the problem here would be how you can tell the difference between accidental and intentional plagiarism. For this if material under question has a good percent of the material is plagiarism, and occurs in good size chunks then I would assume intentional plagiarism. If work as small parts of their sentences then I would assume accidental plagiarism. Now if there are a lot of small parts of sentences I would take off, but not give the full hurting that plagiarism can do. For common knowledge if the same material is covered in multiple books or writings I would consider it common knowledge. This is unless the material being taken is a unique account of common knowledge. Example being the Axis losing World War Two is common knowledge, but the journal of Private Jimmy would need to be citied. Now telling plagiarism from common knowledge is important if you have a book about World War Two that has mostly a review of known fact, but also has personal accounts. The final paper that war book would then have common knowledge being not cited, but also has information very close to that book being citied for the personal accounts. May look like plagiarism but it is not due to the generality of the World War Two subject.