Is this Plagarism?

[NAS]

Where do we draw the line?

I have philosophic arguments with friends, boards, and other people that aren't familar with Objectivism. Say I'm proposing the theory of concepts and mesurment omission (which I agree with). Having gone through the rational steps to understand and accept Rand's theory, is it necessary to cite her everytime I use that argument?

Put it another way, with statements of truth (most of Objectivism) the fact that Rand did it (and did it first) is monumental, if anyone asks who put me down the path I say Rand. But since I hold these principles as MINE is it stealing when I use them without citing?

[DPW]

Put it another way, with statements of truth (most of Objectivism) the fact that Rand did it (and did it first) is monumental, if anyone asks who put me down the path I say Rand. But since I hold these principles as MINE is it stealing when I use them without citing?

You have to acknowledge that Rand discovered them, that you are explaining HER theory, and if you use her words, you must attribute them to her. But this is a contextual issue. When I blogged, it was widely known that I was an Objectivist blogger, so every time I stated some idea, I didn't need to say, "This is Objectivism." On the other hand, since I WAS known as an Objectivist blogger, I tried to be clear when what I was saying WASN'T part of Objectivism.

[NAS]

Two differnt tracks, first:

I don't cite Newton (or Leibniz) every time I use calculus (or F=ma)

Would someone who came up with the the theory of concepts via mesurement omission need to cite Rand whenever they used it?

[dondigitalia]

As Don pointed out, it depends on a great deal of context. If you are writing any sort of formal paper, it is crucial that you cite Ayn Rand as your source every single time you use her ideas. If you are having a discussion on an Objectivist message board, or with someone else who already knows where you the idea, giving a specific citation every single time would be an unnecessary burden. If you are having an informal discussion with someone who might not understand that the ideas are your own, you should cite her at least once (only an informal citation is necessary, such as "according to Ayn Rand...") to set the context, but after that, I think it's ok to just assume it is understood, as long as you are careful, as Don also said, not to inadvertantly attribute your own ideas to Ayn Rand.

[DavidOdden]

I have philosophic arguments with friends, boards, and other people that aren't familar with Objectivism. Say I'm proposing the theory of concepts and mesurment omission (which I agree with). Having gone through the rational steps to understand and accept Rand's theory, is it necessary to cite her everytime I use that argument?

The question you should be asking is this: am I trying to steal someone else's ideas and represent them as my own? Context is the essential determinant, as Don emphasised. On this board, you should assume that participants are familiar with Rand's ideas and that it is not necessary to specifically say "This idea is due to Rand at every point", just as it is not necessary for you to say "BTW, I'm using well-known mathematical ideas from Newton and Leibniz". Nor do you have to cite a historical authority to support the claim that the US fought in WW II.

The obligation to cite derives from the fact of you actually taking those ideas from someone else. If a person were honestly to discover the same ideas as Rand discovered, and were totally unaware of her work, it would be unreasonable to hold them to a requirement for acknowledging something that they don't know. This holds for conceptual re-hashing. Actually stealing the words of another author with a bit of reworking will land you in deep trouble.

[ed: and obviously, it's not hard to replicate good and correct ideas.... I should have said "as the Don's pointed out"]

Edited October 5, 2005 by DavidOdden