On the eternal question of what constitutes plagiarism, via Critical Mass, a post that speaks for itself:
I know you ask yourself constantly: “What does plagiarism look like in the age of simulacrum?” Now we know:
In 2007, after several high-profile plagiarism scandals, Southern Illinois University released a 17-page report on how to deal with the issue. The report includes a lengthy definition of plagiarism, explaining exactly what does and does not merit the dreaded “p” word.
One problem: That definition appears to have been plagiarized.
The 139-word definition used in the report is nearly identical to the definition adopted by Indiana University in 2005. …
… Now if I were a clever postmodernist, I would have just posted Margaret Soltan’s analogous post here in lieu of my own. But I’m not that clever …
Read more here.
Bonus links: A cheat, moi? That’s unfair (Times Higher; hat tip Ninth Level Ireland) | Can law students get away with plagiarism? | The Morality of Plagiarism | Plagiarism is Plagiarism or Why Readily Available Online Information Changes Nothing | What do you do about plagiarism | What do you do about plagiarism | Students turn to web plagiarism | Study shows ‘plagiarism epidemic’.