Sunday, September 28, 2014

Opinion: Should using a consultant's work from another campaign on your campaign be considered plagiarism, or just bad staff work (for not changing the wording).

http://www.jsonline.com/news/mary-burke-stumbles-when-asked-to-define-plagiarism-b99359088z1-277083671.html

26 comments:

Aria Prichard said...

I think that not changing the wording is bad staff work. It means your staff was lazy and didn't try to come up with your own campaign sayings. The repetition of these campaigns will be boring for those who see the campaigns and will make one of the candidates look bad for copying.It in a way is plagiarism because you used the same slogan as the other candidate but that candidate didn't own the saying so you are free to use it too. But it does show that you have a bad staff.

Dan D said...

I think when you don't change the exact wording on an idea its both parties fault. For example with the Mary Burke situation, I blame her and her consultant for publishing something so exact from a different source. But I do think its more plagiarism because they did not cite the sources that they used. It like they basically hit the copy and paste button and figured no one would figure it out.

Joe N said...

Yes I do believe that is should be considered plagiarism. According to merriam webster plagiarism is “the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person.” For example, in the case of Mary Burke her consultant used the ideas of previous campaigns that they had worked on while writing her campaign. The consultant did not give credit to the previous campaign when the ideas were copied word for word. The wording was not changed in any way, so therefore it is considered plagiarism.

alexander passow said...

it is both in my opinion. it is bad staff work for the fact that the staff are people who are paid to do a job so they should do it right. but when it comes done to it using exact word from someone else's work and not giving credit is plagiarism. on the campaigners side though she cant leave the blame on the staff. it is her fault as well because she is the run running for election, not the staff. so because she is the one who is putting the work out she should care more about her work and not blame it on the staff.

Evan R. said...

In my opinion it is both bad staff work and plagiarism. It is bad staff work because they did not alert their candidate that they were using someone else's work and because they didn't cite their sources, a necessity in a society where information is at almost anyone's finger tips. Additionally, it is plagiarism because once again they failed to credit the original author, the very definition of plagiarism.

Emily K. said...

I think not changing the wording is both bad staff work and plagiarism, though I would consider it mostly bad staff work. The campaign staff should have reviewed their material and caught the wording, and cite it, before they released it to the public. While I still believe it is plagiarism because it was nearly word for word, I feel this was not nearly as bad as it could have been because it was the consultant's own work and after the fact the campaign acknowledged the mistake and removed him from work.

Kiera O'Keefe said...

I believe that it is both bad staff work and plagiarism. By the definition of plagiarism, this situation is a perfect example. On the other hand, I think that the staff should catch the plagiarism before the campaign is official.

Logan Kieweg said...

I think that using a consultant's work from another campaign can be considered both bad staff work and plagiarism. It would be considered plagiarism if the person did not site the exact sources from which he or she obtained the information from. Also, the person who is using this information is just pure lazy. This goes to show that this person is not dedicated to their job and would rather copy someone else's work than to put in the hard work of creating something original. I would think twice about the person you are choosing to vote for.

Jerica K said...

In my opinion, this should definitely be considered plagiarism. When you take someone else's work and use it as your own, it is dishonest. Mary Burke, being a member of the Madison school board, should know better. If any of the students in her school would have done this, they would have gotten in big trouble and had severe consequences taken into action.

Austin A. said...

I think that using a consultant's work from another campaign can be considered both plagiarism and bad staff work. By the definition of plagiarism, it is plagiarism, but it is also bad staff work because the fact that a staff member published it without catching that is terrible. However, I still believe that it is mostly plagiarism and that some voters will see it that way too. This could cost Mary Burke votes. So even if it just a blunder of bad staff work, it could be costly to her campaign.

Tyler B said...

Plagiarism is defined as knowingly using another person's words, ideas, or thoughts without proper acknowledgement. If one is using another person's work from another campaign knowingly and not acknowledging that it is their work then it should be considered plagiarism. If they did not know that they were taking something from another campaign ( which becomes doubted because of the wording being the same) then it should be considered bad staff work.

15bochekza said...

I think that it is both as reusing someone's work it the epitome of plagiarism and just in bad taste. I think consultants should directly quote the speech and put a twist on them as to not sound redundant and might be out of style.

Morgan Buss said...

I think that using a consultant's work from another campaign is for sure plagiarism. If you copy the exact words as your consultant, then you're not really showing "your voice". Especially if they did not give credit to whom they copied from. I also agree that this could happen because of bad staff too, because they need to review what your saying and try to improve how you look/sound.

Haley D. said...

I think that the staff was just really lazy and did not try to come up with an original idea. First of all it makes both of the campaigns look very bad. It makes both of them not believable because you don't know which one is the original campaign. The thing is it looks really bad and that pretty much makes you have a bad staff. Plagiarizing is a crime, and when it happens to be a campaign it makes it worse.

Clayton Cavanaugh said...

It's both! It's the absolute worst offence in campaigning, plagiarism that is. It's unprofessional, lazy, and altogether disappointing that Burke's plan was so similar, especially since it was not just a small detail piece in her campaign, but was the main, stirring point to be made in it. Unprofessional plagiarism has shown that he is not a reliable candidate.

Tretow said...

I believe that (regardless of party, as my general standpoint has been made quite clear) implementing past ideas into a situation which could benefit from change is not an issue at all. Explaining the plan word for word can raise questions about how much an individual or group understands the plan, but I do not see it as a big deal. If you're stuck on a cliff and you can't seem to be able to climb it, and someone passes you up using a different method of climbing, why wouldn't you try that method of climbing? I believe the Mary Burke situation has been blown out of proportion, and the future should be studied more than the past in the situation.

Alia M said...

In my opinion yes this is considered plagiarism but it is also considered bad staff work. It's plagiarism because they did not site their sources or give any credit to the author of those sources. It's also bad staff work for not doing the necessary citing and for not knowing that they were even plagiarist in the first place.

Linnea W said...

Assuming that both candidates were from the same party, I would not consider this plagiarism. In my opinion plagiarism is a strong word. Plagiarism refers to purposely taking work or ideas from someone else without citation for one's own benefit. I don't feel that the campaign worker's intention was to benefit personally from the consultant's work. I think they simply wanted to contribute to the team effort and benefit the party.

Makaela H said...

I consider it plagiarism. If you knowingly copy something word for word from someone elses campaign, then it is plagiarism and not ok. If there would have been credit given where credit was due, then there wouldn't have been a problem. If it was bad staff work, then Mary Burke's staff must be really lazy for not giving credit to the other campaign.

Jolyssa K said...

I believe that this is a very serious matter. It is not right to claim other's work as your own, and it seems that she is trying to deny her use of previous work. I don't think such poor publicity will work in her favor, but I also think this should be seen equally in the eyes of the law. If anybody else receives consequences for plagiarism, she should not be an exception. As a candidate, she should have considered that such dishonesty could lead to a worse turnout. I do think, however, that her staff should have been more aware of this issue and brought more attention to this before being published.

Hanna P said...

I believe that using a consultant's work from another campaign on your own campaign is considered both plagiarism and bad staff work. First off, it is considered plagiarism because using another's work for your own, such as in the Mary Burke case, where no credit was given to the work, it is considered plagiarism. It is also bad staff work because her staff was just too lazy to go through and edit text which is bad of her staff. She hired them to work for her for a reason, and I personally feel they didn't properly do their job. Therefore, using a consultants's work from another campaign without changing the wording is plagiarism and bad staff work.

Jessie K. said...

Plagiarism is when you take someone elses work and call it your own. I believe that it is plagiarism because they took someone elses work, but if they cited it or gave whoever the credit for it then I do not think it is plagiarism. I also think that is is bad staff work. The staff should have know not to change to words and make it their own. I think that it just show how lazy the staff is. I believe that if credit was not given to the real author than it is plagiarism and bad staff work.

Brady W said...

Plagiarism is when you take someones work and do not give them acknowledgment. I believe this is plagiarism because Mary Burke took the credit and i also think that it was bad staff work because they were just being lazy for not changing the wording and giving Mary Burke all the credit for this even though it was not hers. So overall I think it was both considered plagiarism and bad staff work.

Brady W said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daniel M. said...

Although this issue may have been caused by bad staff work, it is still plagiarism and I believe that Burke must ultimately take the blame for it, as this is supposed to be her plan. Sections of the plan were copied word for word and no citations were included, so this is obviously plagiarism, and this shows a lack of ethics from both Burke and her staff, who must have both approved of the plan before it became public. Because the plan will still not be changed, I think this shows an even greater lack of ethics, and more importantly, and unwillingness to admit that they were wrong.

Baili L said...

Using a consultants work from another campaign on your campaign should be considered plagiarism because in the first place is it not your words that you are using. If they would change the wording so it doesn't resemble the other persons work then it should be allowed. Kids in school are taught about plagiarism and are told not to do it. This consultant should be able to use his own words and represent something on what he beliefs and not have to copy someone else. Yes they can maybe quote them or use some info but not all of it and definitely not word for word