Can You Plagiarise Yourself?

Apparently you do, because I have no idea what "B matter" is.

 

That hardly is plagiarism. That's boilerplate. If you take a graf or two of basic, factual information that is written in a concise matter, you're not going to face plagiarism charges. And might not even if were lifted from another publication, if it's deep in your story and in the public domain. You can always cover your ass, too, by including lines like, "... as previously reported in the Podunk News" (if it's your own stuff) or "... as reported in the Bumfuck Bugle" (if it's someone else's stuff).

Now get on with it. You've spent more time anguishing here on this post then it would have taken to recast the info in an updated version. Or just include attribution to your current publication or even to yourself. Done.

 

Let me clarify. By strict definition, it is difficult to plagiarize oneself.
But, it is -- undeniably -- disingenious to copy one's work and pass it off as new.
I mean, you don't see the issue with this?

 

Don't do it. ESPECIALLY if it originally appeared a month ago. It's not even a matter of plagiarism, it's just lazy and lame. Someone will notice. Doesn't look good.

 

Joe did it for me.

 

I agree I wouldn't copy just for the sake of copying, and I wouldn't do it at all unless we were talking about background info, so I guess you and I essentially agree.
I'm just saying I don't think using a sentence you've already written before is automatically wrong.

 

As someone who covered one team for a dozen seasons and wrote hundreds of game stories on deadline, both early and late versions, I have little doubt that I "plagiarized" myself unintentionally on one or more occasions.

Sometimes you forget whether you've used a lead or a wisecrack. I'm more likely to know if I'm ripping off someone else than if I'm ripping off myself by using something I a) only thought of or b) actually wrote.

Fortunately, nobody ever waved a side-by-side comparison in my face to charge me with plagiarism, amnesia or senility.

 

I don't like the idea of reusing blocks of text in a story. It reeks of lack of effort. Now, if it's a quote or passage from an important document previously transcribed and properly attributed, that's different. But if we're talking of our own work, sheesh, it doesn't take that long to do a simple rewrite. There are always different ways of conveying what you're trying to convey. Processing the information also keeps it fresh in your mind. Side effects include better writing.

 

I'd given some thought to simply reprinting columns I've written for my paper since they were relevant. However, I always ended up either writing about a completely different topic or I'd write a new column about the same topic. I might sometimes make reference to something I'd previously written, but I wouldn't try to pass off old material as new. That would fail the sniff test.

If you recast your previous material from the same publication, rewrite it, whatever, it's fair game.

 

I'm on days today and my SE on nights. And the ME is on vacation. The inmates are running the jail!

 

For the record. I rewrote it. I pared it down a bit. Reworked something to the top. It's not even close to the original. Although, the original would have sufficed.

 

Wouldn't this mean some reporters plagiarize themselves on a weekly basis while covering some High school (and even pro teams) since most of them give pretty much the same three quotes after every game?