What exactly is the "five (consecutive) word" plagiarism rule?
My understanding is that the toughest standard regarding plagiarism is the "five (consecutive) word" rule, which holds that, if there are five consecutive words identical to someone else's writing, then you are guilty of plagiarism.
This does not apply to, say, proper names like "The Loyal Order of Freemasons", which is considered one word, not five, but what about proverbs or trite expressions such as "My country right or wrong"?
My further understanding is that there are also "looser" standards for determining plagiarism (for example, ten or twenty consecutive "copied" words). When do such standards apply, and when does the five word standard apply?
You need to remember that plagiarism is not just about words ; it can also be about ideas. So a key point here is that …
7y ago
I haven't heard this five-word rule. But I can easily think of many sequences of five words that no one would seriously …
11y ago
Plagiarism is an ethical concept, not a legal one, so there is no universal accepted standard. The 'five-consecutive wor …
11y ago
Plagiarism is like patent law: You cannot patent something that is not original; you cannot patent "cake" or "bread". On …
7y ago
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/7546. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
4 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
You need to remember that plagiarism is not just about words; it can also be about ideas.
So a key point here is that even if you change virtually all of the words, you still need to make sure you cite the source that you are paraphrasing. If you do not cite the source, then it is plagiarism no matter how many words you change.
I have seen students claim to use, say, three or four important books (i.e., by referring to them in footnotes), but then actually take all of the ideas line by line, or paragraph by paragraph (but not word for word), from a website which they do not in any way cite.
This is, unambiguously, plagiarism, even if it is "in their own words". Moreover, there is usually a very clear reason why the student didn't cite that website; they didn't want me to know they had used the website. So it isn't an accidental failure to give credit to the real author, but a deliberate one.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/27171. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Plagiarism is an ethical concept, not a legal one, so there is no universal accepted standard. The 'five-consecutive word' is a rule of thumb, not a legal precept. If you are writing for a particular forum, they may have anti-plagiarism guidelines. This is universally true for universities and other educational institutions, you should check your student handbook if this applies to you. These sorts of institutions actually have software comparing student work to other sources, giving details on the points of comparison.
Quotes, properly attributed, are always allowable within reason (you can't "quote" the entire New York Times on your blog without running into legal trouble). Cliches are typically quotes that have lost their attribution through long use (although your 'My country, right or wrong' is part of a longer Stephen Decatur statement). Cliches are generally open for use, but are also boring and lazy writing.
Otherwise, use your best judgment. If you're actually to the point of counting individual words in common, my guess is that your writing is too close to the original. And no fair changing up one or two words or just changing the word order slightly. It's unethical and, possibly more to the point, doesn't work.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/7550. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I haven't heard this five-word rule. But I can easily think of many sequences of five words that no one would seriously consider plagiarism.
I think that I will
was the first time that
Britain, France, Germany, and Italy
all men, women, and children
March 1 of this year
turn left at the traffic light (that's six!)
five words in a row
Etc etc.
If some university or whatever institution is classifying as "plagiarism" any use of five words in a row that have ever previously been used anywhere in the world, I think that every student there, not to mention every faculty member, is guilty of plagiarism.
You can't rationally define plagiarism simply in terms of the number of words that are the same. Many short strings of words like those above are the most simple and direct way of expressing a common idea. If you never heard one of those phrasings before, you'd be likely to invent it.
I'm reminded of a TV comedy I saw years ago where a writer of home repair books was accused of plagiarism. And so in court the other writer's lawyer read samples from the two books that were word-for-word identical. Statements like, "Attach the faucet using two screws." At one point the defendant says, "How many ways are there to say, 'Attach the faucet using two screws.' 'Put in the two screws to attach the faucet.' 'Screw in the faucet with two screws.' 'See the two screws? Put 'em in.'"
On the other hand I can think of many short phrases that surely would be plagiarism. Like, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat." "The ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything." "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." "I think, therefore I am." (That's only three words in the original Latin: "Cogito, ergo sum.") If you used one of those strings of words in a way that implied it was original, I think you would be guilty of plagiarism.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/7563. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Plagiarism is like patent law: You cannot patent something that is not original; you cannot patent "cake" or "bread". Only original mechanisms can be patented: The common screw has been around for so long, you cannot go patent it. You cannot patent the idea of a clock, or coffee cup, or book.
Similarly in plagiarism, you do not plagiarize somebody if you use a sequence of words that obviously (or failing that, you can show) is widely used elsewhere. "My country, right or wrong!" is not plagiarism, it was widely said in the 1870's.
Plagiarism is non-attributed use of original and unique wording. As a rough rule of thumb, the longer the sequence of words involved, when found in some other work, the more probable it becomes the combination was plagiarized. Thus it becomes difficult to find a sequence of, say, 10 words, appearing in works by multiple authors, that were NOT plagiarized. The same may be true (to a lesser extent as many other answers provide examples) for five words, I haven't heard of any five word rule.
I also would not make such a rule in my university, if I sat on a committee deciding such a thing. "Wherefore art thou, Romeo?" is four words and plagiarized. Elementary, dear Watson! is three and plagiarized, although these are both forgivable offenses.
Plagiarism is about stealing original art (word choices and construction) and/or original ideas, to pass them off as your own original construction. As a professor I do not require a reason or have to meet any standard to suspect a student (or other academic) of plagiarism and therefore search for bits I think were probably plagiarized. It is part of my job, as a teacher and academic, to not be so gullible and trusting.
To those that complain I should consider people innocent until proven guilty, that stricture only applies to punishments by those in authority: obviously police must investigate crimes and consider a person guilty in order to bring them to trial and prove it. Punishment should require proof, suspicion and a search for such proof do not require any proof.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads