Hello everyone
I just thought I would report that the same thing happened to me: a (rather frivolous) comment I made was taken out of context
and published in an article in the Higher without me being informed. The first I heard of it was an email from the university
press officer commenting on me being quoted in the Higher - cue much panicky scrabbling around to find the article as I had no
idea what the quote might have been, nor on what topic. It was anodyne in my case, but it has made me think twice before
contributing again. These are difficult issues and an open discussion is essential if thinking is to move on at a national level -
we should be able to explore our views without it being seen as fact. We should be able to report difficult cases and consult on
other people's policies. I'm sure many of us now feel that this would be difficult as it might expose one's institution to
sensationalist headlines.
I can understand why journalists are interested in the list (and in the Plagiarism conference, which was a rich source of
articles). Reporting on plagiarism is often very negative, though. I would support Paul's suggestion that the assumption should be
that consent should always be explicitly sought. Maybe a warning that the list may become more restrictive if members report
misuse or misinterpretation would be enough at this stage?
Rachel
__________________________________
Dr R Forsyth
Senior Learning and Teaching Fellow
Learning and Teaching Unit
Manchester Metropolitan University
__________________________________
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/ltu
tel: 0161 408 2205
or +33 (0) 476 56 87 91
Skype me at rachel.forsyth
__________________________________
***Learning and Teaching in Action***
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/ltu/ltia
_______________________________
Before acting on this email or opening any attachments, you
should read the Manchester Metropolitan University's email
disclaimer available on its website:
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer .
>>> [log in to unmask] 19/10/2006 15:14 >>>
Dear all,
I was somewhat astonished to see an article which appeared to have been cut and pasted from contributions to the list. It may be
that members will think that useful discussion can still result in such conditions. However I think that much discussion which
has taken place on Mailbase and JiscMAIL lists of which I have been a member would not have taken place under such conditions, and
indeed it has been an issue in the past on one of those lists in precisely the same way (and with the same publication,
unsurprisingly). I welcome breadth of discussion, but I think at the very least the assumption should be that consent for
publication would only be explicit and informed. Harvesting content for publication in a newspaper does not promote trust on such
a list (apart from potentially posing problems for individual posters quoted), and if the problem is non-members of the list using
the archive in this way there is a solution to that as well.
Paul Hubert
in a personal capacity and not for quotation except on this list
-----Original Message-----
From: Plagiarism [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fiona Duggan
Sent: 19 October 2006 10:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Postings to the list
Dear List Members
We recently received a request for information about the list policy regarding the privacy of emails posted to this forum. The
request was raised in response to the publication of a list posting in an education newspaper, where the original contributor felt
that their permission for this use of their email had not been explicitly sought. Later correspondence revealed that permission
had been sought but the email communication had not been received by the contributor and their silence was taken as assent. The
JISCMAIL guidelines state that "sending a message to a public discussion list has been compared to sending a letter to the editor
of a newsletter. This would be regarded as intended for publication (an implied licence) unless there was clear evidence to the
contrary," and also state that "attribution is given to the author."
I hope list members will agree that the list is proving to be a useful forum for the exchange of experiences and opinions.
JISCPAS has been delighted with the level of debate and discussion that has been aired on this list and would be very concerned if
worries about the possibility of appearing in national newspapers discouraged members from contributing to what are at times
robust and lively discussions.
As many list members are aware the Plagiarism discussion list is an open list, and has members (and contributors) who are
journalists by profession. We have in the past asked journalists who subscribe to the list to contact authors directly for
permission to quote from their postings and would like to take this opportunity to re-iterate this request. In addition, to
encourage the frank and open discussion that the list was established to facilitate perhaps contributors to the list could
indicate if their comments should be considered "off the record" with the recognition that journalists would reserve the right to
have a debate with them about the issues and whether it is in the public interest to publish.
Regards
Fiona
Dr Fiona Duggan
Plagiarism Advisory Service
Tel: 0191 243 8441
Email: [log in to unmask]
Post:
Room 304, East Wing
Hadrian House
Higham Place
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8AF
Url:http://www.jiscpas.ac.uk
"The Plagiarism Advisory Service offers general guidance only on issues relevant to plagiarism prevention and detection. Such
guidance does not constitute definitive or legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute therefor. In particular
guidance given by the Service will not take account of provisions of any relevant assessment or other governing regulations. The
Service will not give advice on the interpretation of any regulations and all guidance is given subject to the relevant
regulations. The Plagiarism Advisory Service does not accept any liability for any loss suffered by persons who consult the
Service whether or not such loss is suffered directly or indirectly as a result of reliance placed on guidance given by the
Service"
====
This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private and confidential information. If you are not the
intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. Please reply to this e-mail to highlight the
error. You should also be aware that all electronic mail from, to, or within Northumbria University may be the subject of a
request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and related legislation, and therefore may be required to be disclosed to third
parties.
This e-mail and attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Northumbria University. Northumbria University will
not be liable for any losses as a result of any viruses being passed on.
************************************************************************* You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list.
To Unsubscribe, change your subscription options, or access list archives, visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change
your subscription options, or access list archives, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
You are subscribed to the JISC Plagiarism mailing list. To Unsubscribe, change
your subscription options, or access list archives, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/PLAGIARISM.html
*************************************************************************
|
