 |
 |
Agreed. Setting an arbitrary numerical standard (such as 15%) is an abdication of faculty judgment, as far as I'm concerned. There is no acceptable percentage of plagiarized content, and since you can't trust the app to discern between properly and improperly cited sources, setting a numerical cut-off makes no sense at all. C CARMA GORMAN, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Assistant Chair The University of Texas at Austin | Department of Art and Art History +1 512-471-0901 | [log in to unmask] On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Carma, > > I agree with everything you wrote and have no problem with using the > software as you describe. > > It’s the numerical standard thing that confuses me. I’ve read several > things where people say "Our department requires a number below 15%." (For > some reason, 15% is the number that keeps coming up.) That seems to imply > that the software is detecting plagiarism (or, conversely, originality > greater than 85%.) I think the main thing it shows is that whatever > departments set such standards are run by people who have no idea what > plagiarism means. > > I’m also not sure why anyone would be comfortable with 14% plagiarized > writing whether certified by a machine or a human. > > > Gunnar > ————— > Gunnar Swanson > +1 252 258-7006 > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> > Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design > Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------