Many of you use programs to make sure that your content is not being stolen or plagiarized by others. These programs are not to be suggested to others for any use but to protect the author's own work. Our guidelines state that rewriting others' content is considered plagiarism, whether or not one of these programs catches the author in the act. We do not accept content that is not completely original. We do not accept rewrites of work published by other authors. Authors who are found to be plagiarizing will be immediately suspended.
Our guidelines state:
Plagiarism will not be tolerated. This will result in immediate account suspension.
Plagiarism includes:
Using text taken directly from another source without citing that source and presenting this information as your own.
Rewriting an article (or a significant portion of an article) by another author, using different words and/or sentence structure without adding original thoughts or ideas.
Suggesting that others use programs to check their work for originality only gives those who would unscrupulously profit from your hard work an additional tool to do so. Those who write for Constant Content must be able to produce work that is original by using acceptable means.
Of course we all wish everyone was honest, but making sure that only honest writing is accepted is one of the most difficult parts of my job. Sadly, some people do not know what plagiarism is - which is no excuse, and which is why a definition of plagiarism appears in our guidelines. Others cannot write naturally without errors, so they act as parasites on writers who can. Others simply don't care and will go to great lengths to attempt to get away with plagiarizing.
This phenomenon is one reason that authors here must be very careful when they have offered to help a writer. In the past, some writers who have indicated that they were suspended (and didn't know how! or why!) were actually suspended for blatant plagiarism and have already outworn their welcome.
I use a plagiarism checker because sometimes I see a phrase and wonder "Did I come up with that, or have I read it somewhere before?" When you are a voracious reader, it is easy to use a phrase that you have read before in your writing. Granted, you aren't going to be using large chunks of text, but it can happen. The one I use checks for phrase usage as well as blocks of text. This way I know if there are 10 or more sites using the exact same phrase that I did, I need to change it. I am definitely not unscrupulous or a thief. I simply want to be sure that my wording is truly my own.
Measures taken to ensure writing is original should be built into the writing process. It should not happen after the fact, and this is not the proper use for these programs.
Ed's right that measures should be built into the writing process so that plagiarism doesn't occur. Unfortunately, I didn't build such measures well into my writing process a few days ago when I had an article rejected for not being "original content." I know why it happened. It was very sloppily put together. I was lazy and didn't write up my "research" properly. Not that that's any excuse mind. And I did run it through Copyscape and it came back with no catches - which surprised even me.
Although I understand Ed's comments about programs such as Copyscape not being used for such purposes, I'm sure that many writers put their work through plagiarism check programs to ensure that they've re-written their research well enough for it to stand as original. For example, if someone asked me to write an article about making yogurt, I would have to research it and then write up that information. Even if I had, at the time of taking notes, written down the info in my own words, I would want to be sure that I hadn't "borrowed" any phrases or terms from the sources I had used that would render the article "unoriginal."
Anyway, I'm off to brush up on my research and re-writing process. (That's after the tennis has finished though )
And apologies, Ed. It was the first rejection note I've received in years (or at least a year). But thoroughly deserved.
