To what extent have your CJ105 concept definitions relied on copying definitions from Wikipedia and other Internet sources – is that plagiarism?
I have not actually used the internet for any of my definitions. The concepts given to us are unique and most cannot be found on the internet easily. I use the CJ105 book and then think about examples and other prior knowledge I have about the concept after I have read the book and incorporate it into my definition. I personally think there is no such thing as plagiarism… the dictionary definition is: the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own. This would be easy to overcome since, of course, most of the information one has learned was taught by someone else, however, if the source is not stated the audience/readers would obviously think that the author/person’s thoughts were original; so I feel it is a mater of perspective because the author/person knows they learned it from someone/somewhere else but they do not necessarily/have to state that fact. Personally I feel that the whole thought of plagiarism is quiet stupid and makes no sense… I think people are making a big deal out of nothing.