Gene Bartow says, "Protocol in e-mail exchanges does not require quotation
marks when quoting."  That poses an interesting question.  Why not?  Is the
medium considered so informal that quotation marks are not required?  If
quotation marks are not used, should some reference at least be given to
indicate the source?  The internet has apparently created a interesting new
environment for us with regard to the question of plagiarism.  Is there a
difference between sharing something with a friend via e-mail (as in a
personal letter) and "publishing" something on a "public" list like RAVEN?
If it is okay to "publish" something in e-mail format without giving
credit, is it okay to take something off e-mail or off the Web and not give
credit?  Is it okay for students (we have had quite a few cases in the
English Department) to just lift essays off the Web and turn them in for
credit?  I think we are faced with a lot of questions about plagiarism and
the internet.  The answers to some of the questions may seem obvious to us;
others may cause us to struggle a bit.

        In recent months the subject of plagiarism has evoked considerable
national attention, much of it not internet related.  Take the cases of
historians Ambrose and Goodwin, for example.  Is what they have done any
big deal?  Or was the teacher at Piper High School in Kansas wrong (as
administrators and the school board decided) to fail students for
"plagiarism"?  Are these cases in any way related to the question of using
quotation marks in e-mail?  Obviously, a lot of "stuff" that goes out on
e-mail these days would be difficult to reference; it fits more into the
category of "folk" creations.  But there are just as obviously many other
cases when the old issue of plagiarism does surface and when there does
seem to be some justification in voicing the usual concerns about "lifting"
words without giving credit to the author.

For an interesting recent discussion of plagiarism (not internet related),
see "Etiquette and Ethics in the Plagiarism Hall of Fame"
The Common Review, Vol. 1, No. 3, Spring 2002, pp. 5-6.

Daniel Born, the editor of Common Review, comments on the issue of
plagiarism as a result of recent news on the actions of historians Goodwin
and Ambrose.  He says, "To many--I suspect most--Americans, the failure to
enclose within quotation marks passages borrowed verbatim amounts at most
to an infraction of etiquette.  Like, say, spreading one's butter with the
wrong knife or taking a glass of Burgundy with a dinner of seared tuna."
Born goes on to say, "Punishments delivered to the offender suggest the
state of our confusion.  We vacillate between the scolding of the righteous
and the shoulder shrug of postmodern ennui."

Born ultimately comments that plagiarism is "a little less serious than a
felony but a lot more troubling than offending Emily Post" and argues that
we could do a much better job of monitoring it with an official Web site
"that lists offenders and documents their specific abuses."  Until that is
accomplished, he says, "All of us who toil as writers could carefully
attend to our quotation marks--those tiny, but hardly insignificant,
markers of a civilization."

I will be glad to share a copy of the entire article with anyone interested.

Verbie Prevost



Verbie Lovorn Prevost
Katharine Pryor Professor of English
Director of English Graduate Studies
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Ave
Chattanooga, TN  37403
Phone: 423-755-4627
Fax: 423-785-2282
email: [log in to unmask]