Article Review #3: "Understanding 'Internet Plagiarism'"

Blog #3:

Howard, R. M. (2007). Understanding “Internet plagiarism.” Computers and Composition, 24(1), 3-15.

Note: For my fellow 795/895 students, full-text of the article can be found at http://tinyurl.com/2479yd4 (this links to the journal through ODU Library's proxy, so you'll need your university email and UIN).

As I began to focus my collaboration unit for this course's final project, I realized that I wanted the "topic" to be something of practical use to the student. Coincidentally, around the same time this course started, I found myself embroiled in academic honesty disputes with a few of my online students. As I reflected on plagiarism (what it means to me, what I think it should mean to students, what it actually means to students), I realized that plagiarism could be both a topic for the unit and also a way to reinforce the very collaborative principles I have set out to endorse through this project. Thus, for this blog entry and the one that follows, I am surveying two pieces dealing with plagiarism, its forms, its implications, and (dare I say) its possibilities.

The first of these two articles, then, is Rebecca Howard Moore's "Understanding 'Internet Plagiarism'" (2007). Moore addresses the issue from the viewpoint of the instructor, but quite differently from the typical water-cooler gripes that we have all heard about the topic. In fact, Howard uses the article not only to question how we understand plagiarism, but further to call out those who would seek to convince the writing teacher that the Internet has somehow given rise to a plagiarism epidemic. Howard seeks to shape the discussion in such a way that it might help teachers better understand the Internet-author relationship. Implicit in her argument is the supposition that being so informed might enable teachers to better present that relationship to our students. Such a discussion would enable us to address issues of plagiarism and academic honesty in concrete, usable, non-accusatory terms.

As Howard surveys the various revolutions that have washed over writing and authorship (the printing press, the patronage system, the advent of popular literacy, the mass-marketing of texts), she situate new media as only the newest iteration of a long line of camps seeking to privilege authorship. In discussing, for example, the prominence of 19th century detractors of "mass literacy," Howard writes

John Trimbur (2000) noted that many members of the upper class regarded popular literacy with suspicion; it had the potential to fuel discontent and even revolution (p. 287). Many also feared that mass literacy would produce a market for texts that appealed to the masses’ sensibilities. Nathaniel Hawthorne fumed about the “scribbling women” whose shallow, sentimental works were gaining a larger audience than his. John Carey (1992) asserted that the intelligentsia responded by promoting the notion of “high” and “low” literacy.

Clearly, she argues, revolutions such as these will be met with fear, distrusts, and even contempt, so then it makes sense that this wave of hysteria regarding plagiarism would take hold just as new media threatens/promises to offer up the text to legions of new readers and authors.

Although I must say that the article takes a turn I had not anticipated, I find the arguments riveting, and I am truly excited about the prospect of folding this into my project and also into my overall philosophy of teaching. In my next blog (teaser) I will discuss an article that deals with assemblage and intertexuality, ideas that I think can empower both teachers and students to overcome what Howard calls "the specter of 'Internet plagiarism'." By opening up the dialogue about what it means to be an author and how the Internet might or might not change that role, I think we can allow our students power over their own writing and their notions of how best to interact with the writing of others.