As a student myself (and online instructor), I never plagiarized a paper, and I do know that there are persons that do. However, the assumption that students need to prove innocent (rather than innocence unless otherwise proven) bothers me a great deal. I would refuse both submitting a paper to turnitin AND doing supplemental work. In all honesty, I do hope that some student sooner or later ends up suing colleges. Assuming people to be guilty unless otherwise proven violates quite a number of human rights. Rosanna Tarsiero "Circumstances do not make a man, they reveal him." --James Allen -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Mark Warschauer Sent: venerdì 9 marzo 2007 0.50 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] turnitin issue I know of no precedent or case law, but this is an issue that is taken seriously here at UC Irvine. Students are usually given the permission to opt out of submitting their papers through Turnitin.com, but professors then require any students who opt out to complete one or more alternate assignments to demonstrate their papers were not plagiarized (and those alternatives can be quite onerous). See examples at http://eee.uci.edu/faculty/ccopenha/39b-student/turnitin.students.htm Mark Warschauer

Dear AOIRers,

A colleague teaching another course has come across an issue with an undergrad who refuses to hand in her term paper because the faculty member's course requires that all papers also be submitted to Turnitin.com.

The student claims that this violates her own intellectual property because Turnitin reportedly keeps copies for future plagiarism searches.

As a supposed ICT & society "expert," my colleague came to me for advice. My first thought was horsefeathers.

However, I am wondering if there is any precedent or case law on this in Canada or the US. (EU would be too different, I think.)

I am not interested in the ethics or the morality of Turnitin, but in how other situations have been resolved.

Thanks, Barry Wellman _____________________________________________________________________

Barry Wellman S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman for fun: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php _____________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

Since we've moved onto talking about how to try and guide students away from plagiarism, I recently developed a one-page primer for course design at UWA which suggests some strategies for designing better courses and assessment, encouraging original work. It's up on the web if anyone's interested: http://www.teachingandlearning.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/72852/NotesOnPreventin... (And apologies to Barry as this thread has clearly strayed substantially from his original question!) Cheers, Tama -- Dr Tama Leaver Associate Lecturer (Higher Education Development) Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning (M400) University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Australia Ph: (+61 8) 6488 1502 Fax: (+61 8) 6488 1156 www: http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au www: http://www.tamaleaver.net edublog: http://tama.edublogs.org On 3/9/07, Mary-Helen Ward <mhward@usyd.edu.au> wrote:

I'm not sure that an assumption of plagiarism until proven otherwise is a violation of human rights - personally I think it's like showing your driver's licence when stopped by the police. They're not assuming that you are an unlicensed driver, they are simply confirming that you are licensed. Similarly, the academic staff are not assuming students are plagiarising, they are taking steps to protect the integrity of the institution and to increase the fairness of the classroom environment. Would you be happy if you missed out on a scholarship to a student who had plagiarised? How do you feel about your students turning in plagiarised work?

That said, I agree with Douglas that rather than use systems like turnitin, I would like to see teachers be more creative with their assessments to lessen the possibility of plagiarism.

M-H

On 09/03/2007, at 10:57 AM, Rosanna Tarsiero wrote:

...

As a student myself (and online instructor), I never plagiarized a paper, and I do know that there are persons that do.

However, the assumption that students need to prove innocent (rather than innocence unless otherwise proven) bothers me a great deal.

I would refuse both submitting a paper to turnitin AND doing supplemental work. In all honesty, I do hope that some student sooner or later ends up suing colleges. Assuming people to be guilty unless otherwise proven violates quite a number of human rights.

Rosanna Tarsiero

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

Been poking around trying to find what organization or individual coined the term "Internet" and also trying to find out why the term is always capitalized. I keep coming up with a lot of information on the origin stories of the network and technology (i.e. ARPAnet) but nothing that pinpoints the dawn of the umbrella term "Internet". Thoughts? Links? Literature? Would be greatly appreciated. Tamara ---- Graduate program - Dept. of Communications & Culture York University Toronto, ON tparadis@yorku.ca sashay@gmail.com

The capitaliztion is because it is treated as a proper noun - "a specific person, place or thing." Harbrace College Handbook Joseph Reagle <reagle@mit.edu> wrote: On Wednesday 28 March 2007, Tamara Paradis wrote:

Been poking around trying to find what organization or individual coined the term "Internet" and also trying to find out why the term is always capitalized. I keep coming up with a lot of information on the origin stories of the network and technology (i.e. ARPAnet) but nothing that pinpoints the dawn of the umbrella term "Internet".

Not sure if this is what you were after, but Vint Cerf is fond of talking about how the merging of ARPANET, PRNET, and SATNET were known as the "'inter-net' problem" [1]. However, I've not found much documentation of that. [1] http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg27462.html What I have found is that the terms international, internet, and internetwork were used rather throughout the 1970s, they (Cerf) couldn't even settle on what to call it, or what ITP stood for: Vinton Cerf + ~ A partial specification of an International Transmission Protocol o y=1973 o Specifies a International Transmission Protocol (ITP) implemented via TCP Vinton Cerf, Yogen Dalal, Carl Sunshine + ~ Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program o n=RFC 675, NIC 2 INWG 72 m=December y=1974 Vinton Cerf + ~ IEN #5: Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program: TCP (Version 2) o m=March y=1977 o Uses the term Internet, but otherwise speaks about Internetwork Vinton G. Cerf, Jonathan B. Postel + ~ Specification of Internetwork Transmission Control Program: TCP, Version 3 o m=January y=1978 o Version 3 simplifies TCP by breaking out IP into a separate spec, goes back to using Internetwork In version 3 (1978) because IP was split out of TCP, and was unambiguously referred to as Internet Protocol, I think that's when the term began to stick. However, there's more ambiguity on the details and versioning of these specs [2], so it's not as easy as that! [2] http://www.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2006-October/000644.html My theory as to why Internet remains capitalized whereas the Web doesn't is: language usage evolves in odd ways, and Internet seems more like an acronym which perhaps innoculates it from change. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.

Grammatically speaking, it should be capitalised as long as there is the possibility of other internets. In other words, it is THE Internet, but other internets are also possible. This is done to clarify which internet is being referred to. Rather like the Western (cultural) world, as opposed to western (geographic) places. Nifty and often overlooked grammatical device. However, I'm not aware of any other internets so it seems rather redundant - though the possibility is always there, I suppose ... I always capitalise, just in case :-) Hope this helps. Cheers, Hughie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tama Leaver" <tamaleaver@gmail.com> To: <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet" ?

Hi All,

Regarding the capitalisation (or not), in 2004, Wired ran a column declaring: It's Just the 'internet' Now http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/08/64596

I recall it provoked a lot of discussion at the time; I've not capitalised internet for a while, but are others still Internetting?

- Tama

On 3/29/07, James Whyte <whyte.james@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

The capitaliztion is because it is treated as a proper noun - "a specific person, place or thing." Harbrace College Handbook

Joseph Reagle <reagle@mit.edu> wrote: On Wednesday 28 March 2007, Tamara Paradis wrote:

...

Been poking around trying to find what organization or individual coined the term "Internet" and also trying to find out why the term is always capitalized. I keep coming up with a lot of information on the origin stories of the network and technology (i.e. ARPAnet) but nothing that pinpoints the dawn of the umbrella term "Internet".

Not sure if this is what you were after, but Vint Cerf is fond of talking about how the merging of ARPANET, PRNET, and SATNET were known as the "'inter-net' problem" [1]. However, I've not found much documentation of that.

[1] http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg27462.html

What I have found is that the terms international, internet, and internetwork were used rather throughout the 1970s, they (Cerf) couldn't even settle on what to call it, or what ITP stood for:

Vinton Cerf + ~ A partial specification of an International Transmission Protocol o y=1973 o Specifies a International Transmission Protocol (ITP) implemented via TCP Vinton Cerf, Yogen Dalal, Carl Sunshine + ~ Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program o n=RFC 675, NIC 2 INWG 72 m=December y=1974 Vinton Cerf + ~ IEN #5: Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program: TCP (Version 2) o m=March y=1977 o Uses the term Internet, but otherwise speaks about Internetwork Vinton G. Cerf, Jonathan B. Postel + ~ Specification of Internetwork Transmission Control Program: TCP, Version 3 o m=January y=1978 o Version 3 simplifies TCP by breaking out IP into a separate spec, goes back to using Internetwork

In version 3 (1978) because IP was split out of TCP, and was unambiguously referred to as Internet Protocol, I think that's when the term began to stick. However, there's more ambiguity on the details and versioning of these specs [2], so it's not as easy as that!

[2] http://www.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2006-October/000644.html

My theory as to why Internet remains capitalized whereas the Web doesn't is: language usage evolves in odd ways, and Internet seems more like an acronym which perhaps innoculates it from change. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

--------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

-- Dr Tama Leaver Associate Lecturer (Higher Education Development) Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning (M400) University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Australia Ph: (+61 8) 6488 1502 Fax: (+61 8) 6488 1156

www: http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au www: http://www.tamaleaver.net edublog: http://tama.edublogs.org _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

"Internet" is a proper noun, a name, of a particular computer network that was initiated in Oct 1969 by DOD ARPA and has since that time had a well defined existence - that computer network is defined by a single addressing scheme currently administered by ICANN and the community that is a part of it. People join the network; people leave the network; but it is one network. On Jan 1, 1981 (or 82, I always forget), pursuant to DOD procurement specs, the ARPANet migrated to IPv4. There are MANY "internets." An internet is a network that implements the TCP/IP network. It is distinguished from THE INTERNET in that it is not interconnected with The Internet and does not share in The Internet's singular addressing scheme. Level3, for example, runs an IP backbone that is not interconnected with The Internet. This is a private network and it is an "internet" network. I can connect two computers using IP - they are not interconnected with The Internet and therefore are an "internet." Note, I do not really consider Wired an authority on this subject. Wired is a pop magazine that writes teaser articles to get people to read ads. There are many stories concerning the origin of the name "Internet." According to NERDS 2.0.1, p. 111, "The protocol they [Cerf and Kahn] invented is known by its initials, TCP/IP - standing for the mouthful Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol. It is significant historically for originating the use of the term *Internet*, in about 1973, as a handy abbreviation for the "inter-networking of networks."" For more information on "Internet" and its definition, see http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/internet_definition.htm and particularly "Will The Real Internet Please Stand Up?" http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/internetreal.htm Thanks =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Cybertelecom :: Federal Internet Law & Policy www.cybertelecom.org Washington hOCKEY Wiki wockey.stikipad.com News Tryouts Clubs Leagues Pickup Rinks Info

--- Sue Cranmer <sue@jcranmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

Interesting discussion. How do aiorlisters then see the comparison between the the 'Internet' or 'internet' and the 'telephone'?

That's a good question and I have wondered about that. http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/att.htm The telephone was of course invented in 1876 by Elisha Gray of Oberlin. Too bad for Elisha that Alexander Graham Bell beat him to the patent office. Bell did not believe that he was inventing a "telephone"; he believe he was inventing a "voice telegraph." Now at this time there were multiple competing telegraph networks. "Telegraph" was not the name of one network; "Western Union" was. Likewise, with the invention of the telephone, there was competition between telephone networks. Western Union bought Edison's patent for a telephone and immediately opened a competing telephone network - until Bell sued. Bell did not have enough money to build a nationwide singular telephone network, so he licensed his technology and set up multiple local telephone companies known as Bell Operating Companies. Long distance was not immediately possible, so again, you had multiple "telephone" networks, not one with the name "Telephone." Then the Bell Patents expired and you immediately had competition from indies. By 1904 you have 5000+ independent telephone networks competing with the Bell networks. In one city you may have multiple telephone networks that competed but did not interconnect - so a business would have to have two or more phones to be reached by everyone. This was known as Dual Service. Finally, by 1934, AT&T had become the government sanctioned monopoly and had become THE telephone network. The point is that there is a significant difference in the evolution of telephone and the Internet. There were always multiple telephone (and telegraph) networks; there was no time where there was one telephone network named The Telephone network. There are also multiple computer networks with no one network called The Computer Network. But there is one The Internet. It has a birth on a specific date; it has a common addressing scheme (you either have an address and are reachable or your dont); and it has a consistent (changing but you can always draw a line around it) subscribership. It's a good question, comparing the telephone telegraph and the Internet. But I think the real comparison here is the telephone, telegraph, and computer networks. AT&T was one telephone network; The Internet is one computer network. B =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Cybertelecom :: Federal Internet Law & Policy www.cybertelecom.org Washington hOCKEY Wiki wockey.stikipad.com News Tryouts Clubs Leagues Pickup Rinks Info

the association standardized on small i, internet a while ago. On Mar 29, 2007, at 2:16 PM, M.B.Gaved wrote:

"Internet" or "internet"?

Maybe it's also got something to do with novelty - I am sure I've seen a shift from people referring to "E-mail" towards "e-mail" and now just plain "email". In the same way I think the shift has probably happened from "Internet" to "internet" as it's now seen as commonplace and not worth capitalising.

as I recall, and given our record of not maintaining much standardization of anything, the discussion was along the lines of 'can we stop capitalizing it?, is there any reason to capitalize it?' to which there was consensus was 'yes' and 'no'. this debate was had in terms of the first annual, and in regards to I think it was I.R. 4.0 . In my mind, there is no 'debate' or even 'strong argument' . You can do whatever you want because at best internet is a set that demarcates too many things to be capitalized, there is no thing called 'the Internet' beyond linguistic convention, there are a set of standards, and technologies that are internet technologies, ie technologies that allow you to network and make internets amongst networks and to transfer data across networks, but... when we say 'the internet' we cannot be referring to any proper name, as there is literally no simple referent. To capitalize it is to capitalize, the 'Globe' instead of capitalizing the 'Earth'. There are many globes with many forms and there are many internets with many forms. On Mar 30, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Sue Cranmer wrote:

Hi Jeremy

In view of the strong arguments here to the contrary, do you have time to briefly outline why the assoc. decided to standardize on the small I, or point towards the relevant archive?

Thanks

Best wishes

Sue

-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Hunsinger Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 19:41 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet" ?

the association standardized on small i, internet a while ago. On Mar 29, 2007, at 2:16 PM, M.B.Gaved wrote:

...

"Internet" or "internet"?

Maybe it's also got something to do with novelty - I am sure I've seen a shift from people referring to "E-mail" towards "e-mail" and now just plain "email". In the same way I think the shift has probably happened from "Internet" to "internet" as it's now seen as commonplace and not worth capitalising.

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release Date: 28/03/2007 16:23

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release Date: 28/03/2007 16:23

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

jeremy hunsinger Information Ethics Fellow, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (www.cipr.uwm.edu) wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series

Sue, Jeremy and others, Based on many of the arguments raised in this debate, we decided years ago to standardize our house style on the Internet, with a capital 'I', even though we are swimming upstream of shifting journalistic conventions. Bill Professor William H. Dutton, Director Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford One St Giles Oxford OX1 3JS United Kingdom Tel +44 (0)1865 287 210 Fax +44 (0)1865 287 211 Mobile +44 (0)7768 823 906 Personal Webpage <http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/dutton/> -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Sue Cranmer Sent: 30 March 2007 13:18 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet" ? Hi Jeremy In view of the strong arguments here to the contrary, do you have time to briefly outline why the assoc. decided to standardize on the small I, or point towards the relevant archive? Thanks Best wishes Sue -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Hunsinger Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 19:41 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet" ? the association standardized on small i, internet a while ago. On Mar 29, 2007, at 2:16 PM, M.B.Gaved wrote:

"Internet" or "internet"?

Maybe it's also got something to do with novelty - I am sure I've seen a shift from people referring to "E-mail" towards "e-mail" and now just plain "email". In the same way I think the shift has probably happened from "Internet" to "internet" as it's now seen as commonplace and not worth capitalising.

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release Date: 28/03/2007 16:23 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release Date: 28/03/2007 16:23 _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

This discussion clearly exposes the power of ontological commitment which leads to sanctioned inferences. A process that is benign in casual conversation but dangerous in scholarly discourse. I assume that OII did so in the interest of scholarship and is (more) correct in so doing. Parallel to this (small I) issue, is the definitional problem that allows the term itself to be used outside the formal definition. In the end, for the purpose of scholarship, the Internet is a network of networks with a cap I. Everything else is sociologically bound and is not the Internet. William Dutton <william.dutton@oii.ox.ac.uk> wrote: Sue, Jeremy and others, Based on many of the arguments raised in this debate, we decided years ago to standardize our house style on the Internet, with a capital 'I', even though we are swimming upstream of shifting journalistic conventions. Bill Professor William H. Dutton, Director Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford One St Giles Oxford OX1 3JS United Kingdom Tel +44 (0)1865 287 210 Fax +44 (0)1865 287 211 Mobile +44 (0)7768 823 906 Personal Webpage -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Sue Cranmer Sent: 30 March 2007 13:18 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet" ? Hi Jeremy In view of the strong arguments here to the contrary, do you have time to briefly outline why the assoc. decided to standardize on the small I, or point towards the relevant archive? Thanks Best wishes Sue -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Hunsinger Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 19:41 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet" ? the association standardized on small i, internet a while ago. On Mar 29, 2007, at 2:16 PM, M.B.Gaved wrote:

"Internet" or "internet"?

Maybe it's also got something to do with novelty - I am sure I've seen a shift from people referring to "E-mail" towards "e-mail" and now just plain "email". In the same way I think the shift has probably happened from "Internet" to "internet" as it's now seen as commonplace and not worth capitalising.

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release Date: 28/03/2007 16:23 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release Date: 28/03/2007 16:23 _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

I capitalize the Internet because it seems like the Force ("the Force be with you") or God or Satori -- cultural constructs that fundamentally, ineffably change human life. All are conventionally capitalized. It just happens that technology is at play here -- but our becoming a global species is possible, in my opinion, because of the Internet. Maybe it's not Satori, but it's something worth capitalizing. On Mar 30, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:

On Mar 30, 2007, at 10:51 AM, James Whyte wrote:

...

This discussion clearly exposes the power of ontological commitment which leads to sanctioned inferences. A process that is benign in casual conversation but dangerous in scholarly discourse.

the capitalization issue of no import, nor is it dangerous to scholarly discourse.

...

I assume that OII did so in the interest of scholarship and is (more) correct in so doing.

I assume OII did it because at the time it was founded that was the fashion, and that it is still the fashion in some institutions, which is fine, however that something is the mode of operation does not imply any normative frame.

...

Parallel to this (small I) issue, is the definitional problem that allows the term itself to be used outside the formal definition.

there is no specified formal definition, there are just a series of scholarly, popular, and dictionary definitions

...

In the end, for the purpose of scholarship, the Internet is a network of networks with a cap I. Everything else is sociologically bound and is not the Internet.

in the end there is no internet without the sociologically bound.

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

Bonnie A. Nardi School of Information and Computer Sciences University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-3440 (949) 824-6534 www.artifex.org/~bonnie/

It is only ONE network in the sense that you refer to it as one, it is a network of networks. let's not forget interplanetary internet systems, which we have now too. On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Maria Bakardjieva wrote:

I would prefer to not have to do it, but each time I try to submit a course paper without it capitalized, I get the paper back marked up by the professors, telling me it is capital I- internet. So I'm resigned, for now, to leaving it as a proper noun. Tamara -----Original Message----- From: Tama Leaver [mailto:tamaleaver@gmail.com] Sent: March 28, 2007 9:11 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet" ? Hi All, Regarding the capitalisation (or not), in 2004, Wired ran a column declaring: It's Just the 'internet' Now http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/08/64596 I recall it provoked a lot of discussion at the time; I've not capitalised internet for a while, but are others still Internetting? - Tama On 3/29/07, James Whyte <whyte.james@yahoo.com> wrote:

The capitaliztion is because it is treated as a proper noun - "a specific person, place or thing." Harbrace College Handbook

Joseph Reagle <reagle@mit.edu> wrote: On Wednesday 28 March 2007, Tamara Paradis wrote:

...

Been poking around trying to find what organization or individual coined the term "Internet" and also trying to find out why the term is always capitalized. I keep coming up with a lot of information on the origin stories of the network and technology (i.e. ARPAnet) but nothing that pinpoints the dawn of the umbrella term "Internet".

Not sure if this is what you were after, but Vint Cerf is fond of talking about how the merging of ARPANET, PRNET, and SATNET were known as the "'inter-net' problem" [1]. However, I've not found much documentation of that.

[1] http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg27462.html

What I have found is that the terms international, internet, and internetwork were used rather throughout the 1970s, they (Cerf) couldn't even settle on what to call it, or what ITP stood for:

Vinton Cerf + ~ A partial specification of an International Transmission Protocol o y=1973 o Specifies a International Transmission Protocol (ITP) implemented via TCP Vinton Cerf, Yogen Dalal, Carl Sunshine + ~ Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program o n=RFC 675, NIC 2 INWG 72 m=December y=1974 Vinton Cerf + ~ IEN #5: Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program: TCP (Version 2) o m=March y=1977 o Uses the term Internet, but otherwise speaks about Internetwork Vinton G. Cerf, Jonathan B. Postel + ~ Specification of Internetwork Transmission Control Program: TCP, Version 3 o m=January y=1978 o Version 3 simplifies TCP by breaking out IP into a separate spec, goes back to using Internetwork

In version 3 (1978) because IP was split out of TCP, and was unambiguously referred to as Internet Protocol, I think that's when the term began to stick. However, there's more ambiguity on the details and versioning of these specs [2], so it's not as easy as that!

[2] http://www.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2006-October/000644.h tml

My theory as to why Internet remains capitalized whereas the Web doesn't is: language usage evolves in odd ways, and Internet seems more like an acronym which perhaps innoculates it from change. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

--------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

-- Dr Tama Leaver Associate Lecturer (Higher Education Development) Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning (M400) University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Australia Ph: (+61 8) 6488 1502 Fax: (+61 8) 6488 1156 www: http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au www: http://www.tamaleaver.net edublog: http://tama.edublogs.org

I have received comments both onlist and offlist about my comments on this thread. I offer this as a source for my reasoning. My apology for not doing this earlier. What is an Ontology? Tom Gruber <gruber@ksl.stanford.edu> Short answer: An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization. The word "ontology" seems to generate a lot of controversy in discussions about AI. It has a long history in philosophy, in which it refers to the subject of existence. It is also often confused with epistemology, which is about knowledge and knowing. In the context of knowledge sharing, I use the term ontology to mean a specification of a conceptualization. That is, an ontology is a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents. This definition is consistent with the usage of ontology as set-of-concept-definitions, but more general. And it is certainly a different sense of the word than its use in philosophy. What is important is what an ontology is for. My colleagues and I have been designing ontologies for the purpose of enabling knowledge sharing and reuse. In that context, an ontology is a specification used for making ontological commitments. The formal definition of ontological commitment is given below. For pragmetic reasons, we choose to write an ontology as a set of definitions of formal vocabulary. Although this isn't the only way to specify a conceptualization, it has some nice properties for knowledge sharing among AI software (e.g., semantics independent of reader and context). Practically, an ontological commitment is an agreement to use a vocabulary (i.e., ask queries and make assertions) in a way that is consistent (but not complete) with respect to the theory specified by an ontology. We build agents that commit to ontologies. We design ontologies so we can share knowledge with and among these agents. This definition is given in the article: T. R. Gruber. A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993. Available on line. A more detailed description is given in T. R. Gruber. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Presented at the Padua workshop on Formal Ontology, March 1993, to appear in an edited collection by Nicola Guarino. Available online. http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html --------------------------------- Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Whaddayamean, no one cares? Congratulations on almost being there, mate. paul teusner fishers, surfers and casters http://teusner.org/ -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Denise N. Rall Sent: Tuesday, 3 April 2007 11:30 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet" ? - ontology revisited Ok, I'm sure everyone is over this thread. But I do agree there's a purpose for the small-i internet as opposed to the large I. Which BTW is based on IP not TCP/IP - the transmission protocol is something else, not necessarily linked to the Internet (Purdue University was running an IP not TCP/IP version in the late 1990's). Here's how I use the small-i internet in my thesis: "This thesis uses "the small i-internet" to express a growing set of networked technologies that work through several infrastructures: the internet, mobile telephony, multi-user networked digital games, and upcoming interactive digital television. These networked technologies, often called the 'new media' or media ecologies provide linkages to a rich set of theoretical perspectives that connect audiences, communicative media, and the subsequent development of local and global policies." Rall, D. N. 2007. "Locating four pathways to internet scholarship." School of Enivronmental Science and Management. Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW. unpublished PhD thesis. Cheers (no one cares but I'm almost a Dr.!) Denise Denise N. Rall, PhD thesis, "Locating four pathways to internet scholarship" School of Env. Science, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480 AUSTRALIA Tues: Room T2.17, +61 (0)2 6620 3577 Mobile 0438 233 344 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/rsm/staff/pages/drall/ Virtual member, Cybermetrics Group, University of Wolverhampton, UK http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk/index.html ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

[on quite another topic] Does anyone have any experiences, good or bad, with submitting to journals that focus on biographical research as a potential publication venue for internet scholarship? - on or off list- I noticed this collection that's now a bit dated from the journal _Biography_ and wondered about other possible venues for publication. Technobiography: Researching Lives, Online and Off Biography - Volume 26, Number 1, Winter 2003. THANKS, Denise Denise N. Rall, PhD thesis, "Locating four pathways to internet scholarship" School of Env. Science, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480 AUSTRALIA Tues: Room T2.17, +61 (0)2 6620 3577 Mobile 0438 233 344 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/rsm/staff/pages/drall/ Virtual member, Cybermetrics Group, University of Wolverhampton, UK http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk/index.html ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

Here's a less verbose (and so more obtuse) definition, complementary to at least some aspects of that "short answer" and in the context of three others: Ontology regards what can be known (including demarcations regarding the basis for decisions, such as appeal to observable facts). Epistemology involves strategies for knowing (ideally implying, if not explicitly specifying, criteria for evaluating particular applications of the strategy). Theory attempts to summarize what is known (reducing the idiosyncrasies of life's complexity by appeal to patterns, processes, or other connecting threads). Methodology involves and applies ideas about coming to know. -eg

-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l- bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of James Whyte Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:09 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet" ?

I have received comments both onlist and offlist about my comments on this thread. I offer this as a source for my reasoning. My apology for not doing this earlier. What is an Ontology? Tom Gruber <gruber@ksl.stanford.edu> Short answer: An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization. The word "ontology" seems to generate a lot of controversy in discussions about AI. It has a long history in philosophy, in which it refers to the subject of existence. It is also often confused with epistemology, which is about knowledge and knowing. In the context of knowledge sharing, I use the term ontology to mean a specification of a conceptualization. That is, an ontology is a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents. This definition is consistent with the usage of ontology as set-of-concept-definitions, but more general. And it is certainly a different sense of the word than its use in philosophy. What is important is what an ontology is for. My colleagues and I have been designing ontologies for the purpose of enabling knowledge sharing and reuse. In that context, an ontology is a specification used for making ontological commitments. The formal definition of ontological commitment is given below. For pragmetic reasons, we choose to write an ontology as a set of definitions of formal vocabulary. Although this isn't the only way to specify a conceptualization, it has some nice properties for knowledge sharing among AI software (e.g., semantics independent of reader and context). Practically, an ontological commitment is an agreement to use a vocabulary (i.e., ask queries and make assertions) in a way that is consistent (but not complete) with respect to the theory specified by an ontology. We build agents that commit to ontologies. We design ontologies so we can share knowledge with and among these agents. This definition is given in the article: T. R. Gruber. A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220, 1993. Available on line. A more detailed description is given in T. R. Gruber. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Presented at the Padua workshop on Formal Ontology, March 1993, to appear in an edited collection by Nicola Guarino. Available online.

http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html

--------------------------------- Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

On Mar 8 2007, Douglas Eyman wrote:

If you put in a substantive amount of the "plagiarized text," the hash that is stored is output as identical to the original work that has been collected by the company. In other words, if you took all of a book that someone else has written and put it into a database, if when you get the output it reads the same, then the IP issues are still the same

I'm afraid I tend to disagree -- that is not what the cases say (specifically, see here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=949937&high=%20Mereology ) What you have described is essentially the Google Book Search project. The strongest argument for Turnitin as "fair use" is the one that Google has asserted. DLB -- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu

Hi Doug -- First, I agree about the separate issue of instructors managaing relationships with students. As far as the copyright question goes, no fair use configuration is *ever* resolved until litigated. But that doesn't mean that we can't do a good extrapolation from decided cases. And one thing the Supreme Court has been fairly clear on is that the commercial/non-commercial distinction is not determinative, or even very important, in fair use. So that doesn't really count against Turnitin or for Google on the analysis. If there is a difference between Google Books and Turnitin, I would say that it is in the public benefit of the resulting database. The potential public benefits of the Google digitized library are enormous; the public benefits of the Turnitin database are much more modest. DLB On Mar 9 2007, Douglas Eyman wrote:

Dan,

thanks for this cite -- your work on the Google Books issues is really interesting (especially for those of us who are interested in both IP and database issues).

But I'll have to disagree with your disagreement a bit :) -- Google Books' economic model doesn't currently charge users for access to the text (and they restrict it as well), whereas Turnitin.com does charge directly for access to the copyrighted works in its database. I think it is certainly feasible to make a kind of fair use case, but I'm less concerned about that issue than how instructors and institutions manage their relationships with students through the lens of using the system. (And besides, given that there has been no litigation that has resulted in a ruling on whether Turnitin.com's use is indeed fair use, it remains an unresolved (an unresolvable until litigated) question.)

Doug

burkx006@umn.edu wrote:

...

On Mar 8 2007, Douglas Eyman wrote:

...

If you put in a substantive amount of the "plagiarized text," the hash that is stored is output as identical to the original work that has been collected by the company. In other words, if you took all of a book that someone else has written and put it into a database, if when you get the output it reads the same, then the IP issues are still the same

I'm afraid I tend to disagree -- that is not what the cases say (specifically, see here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=949937&high=%20Mereology )

What you have described is essentially the Google Book Search project. The strongest argument for Turnitin as "fair use" is the one that Google has asserted.

DLB

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

-- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu

On Mar 9 2007, James Whyte wrote:

It occurs to me that requiring a student to agree to Turnitin as a requirement for a course may be a "contract" made under duress and therefore subject to challenge.

Legally, no, this is not duress. Simply witholding a desired benefit in a competitive marketplace will typically not be duress. The student can take a different class, or go to a different school, or choose a different career. There are enough alternatives, and no threat to necessities of life, that duress is not a credible claim. That does not resolve the ethical question of coercion, as several people have pointed out. I am not certain that the analogy to requiring spellchecking works, since that sort of requriment seems to be part of pedagogy to teach students a skill, and Turnitin matching seems to be more of a policing function. In that vein, I am not sure that I understand Marjorie's claim that Turnitin is useful for teaching referencing, since no one outside the company knows the matching algorithm -- the criteria for text comparison are unknown, so it is hard for me to see what the students would learn. Perhaps she could say more about that. DLB -- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu

Dan, thanks for the background/clarification. I'm an editor of an online journal (Kairos: Rhetoric, Technology, Pedagogy -- http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/, and we are currently wrestling with how to articulate fair use for new media scholarship. We get a lot of submissions that incorporate others' work in ways that we think constitute fair use, but in the current (over) litigious climate, we're trying to figure out how to balance protecting the journal and not stifling innovative scholarship. So in a way, the question of turnitin.com as one of intellectual property is one facet of trying to figure out how walk this tightrope. Your comment about the Supreme Court's actions also helps us to think through this (although it unfortunately weighs on the side that we shouldn't support academic work that uses remixing or engages new media as sources of quotation -- our status as a free (non-commercial) academic journal wouldn't have much impact on a fair use ruling it seems). I'm wondering if others on this list are wrestling with these issues, either as editors, scholars who are creating new media scholarly texts, or mentors/advisors to students who are interested in doing this kind of work. How have you resolved the copyright/IP issues? How have you counseled colleagues and students about it? Doug burkx006@umn.edu wrote:

Hi Doug --

First, I agree about the separate issue of instructors managaing relationships with students.

As far as the copyright question goes, no fair use configuration is *ever* resolved until litigated. But that doesn't mean that we can't do a good extrapolation from decided cases. And one thing the Supreme Court has been fairly clear on is that the commercial/non-commercial distinction is not determinative, or even very important, in fair use. So that doesn't really count against Turnitin or for Google on the analysis.

If there is a difference between Google Books and Turnitin, I would say that it is in the public benefit of the resulting database. The potential public benefits of the Google digitized library are enormous; the public benefits of the Turnitin database are much more modest. DLB

On Mar 9 2007, Douglas Eyman wrote:

...

Dan,

thanks for this cite -- your work on the Google Books issues is really interesting (especially for those of us who are interested in both IP and database issues).

But I'll have to disagree with your disagreement a bit :) -- Google Books' economic model doesn't currently charge users for access to the text (and they restrict it as well), whereas Turnitin.com does charge directly for access to the copyrighted works in its database. I think it is certainly feasible to make a kind of fair use case, but I'm less concerned about that issue than how instructors and institutions manage their relationships with students through the lens of using the system. (And besides, given that there has been no litigation that has resulted in a ruling on whether Turnitin.com's use is indeed fair use, it remains an unresolved (an unresolvable until litigated) question.)

Doug

burkx006@umn.edu wrote:

...

On Mar 8 2007, Douglas Eyman wrote:

...

If you put in a substantive amount of the "plagiarized text," the hash that is stored is output as identical to the original work that has been collected by the company. In other words, if you took all of a book that someone else has written and put it into a database, if when you get the output it reads the same, then the IP issues are still the same I'm afraid I tend to disagree -- that is not what the cases say (specifically, see here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=949937&high=%20Mereology )

What you have described is essentially the Google Book Search project. The strongest argument for Turnitin as "fair use" is the one that Google has asserted.

DLB

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

A few other notes to consider: Turnitin does not store the actual paper. They store a hash of the paper, weakening the argument that IP is being violated.

[A *hash*? Really, come on. A whole-document hash, certainly not, given their output and use. A hash of paragraphs or sentences? Maybe - but that gets us closer to being able to reconstruct the actual text, or at least assess similarity.] If I were building an online plagiarism detection service, using very well understood information retrieval methods - term-document matrices, document vectors, and the like - I would find it fairly difficult NOT to store the student's work in a re-constitutable form. --elijah

Wait a minute: It can't be a copyright *violation* if the student consents to the copying as part of the submission process ... it's a licenced copy/adaptation (the hash is an adaptation, but you can consent to an adaptation) ... assuming the student is fully informed that this is what's happening ... which may or may not be the case. As long as the copy isn't used for any purpose other than that stated, there's no violation of anything to do with copyright. If Turnitin doesn't exploit the students' IP by selling the copies and not compensating the student there's nothing the student can object to ... but arguably that's what's happening ... Does the student understand what will happen to the copy? If so, they can refuse to licence the copy but they have to bear the cost of that refusal ... which, as Dan points out, makes it an issue of coersion ... which seems to be the real issue here. But institutions 'coerce' their students on different things all the time, like having to pass assessments, parking restrictions, payment of tuition fees ...submit assignments in English ... referenced in a particular style ... and that's really only an administrative requirement. As far as I'm concerned, it's like drug testing: no-one's assuming anything until you refuse to submit to the test. Once you refuse, that's grounds to suspect their may be a problem ... and work on the basis that there might be until it's proven that there isn't. I doubt there's any real legal problems, since the copying is done with consent on submission (assuming Turnitin's lawyers are sharp enough to have thought of that one), but the ethical issue of coercing students is far more scary, IMHO. Is it reasonable to ask students to consent to a copying process that doesn't deny them consideration (assuming that's what's happening) and leads to a fairer system for all? What's the difference between that and requiring them to submit in a particular style of English? Or on paper? Or on a particular topic? Or by a particular date??? Cheers, Hughie (sorry, Barry, can't help you. But it's a good issue). ----- Original Message ----- From: <burkx006@umn.edu> To: <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [Air-l] turnitin issue

Turnitin in fact keeps a hash of the paper. That may be a copyright violation. In the process of making the hash, they make a copy. That is a copyright violation, in pretty much any jurisdiction. DLB

On Mar 8 2007, Barry Wellman wrote:

...

Dear AOIRers,

A colleague teaching another course has come across an issue with an undergrad who refuses to hand in her term paper because the faculty member's course requires that all papers also be submitted to Turnitin.com.

The student claims that this violates her own intellectual property because Turnitin reportedly keeps copies for future plagiarism searches.

As a supposed ICT & society "expert," my colleague came to me for advice. My first thought was horsefeathers.

However, I am wondering if there is any precedent or case law on this in Canada or the US. (EU would be too different, I think.)

I am not interested in the ethics or the morality of Turnitin, but in how other situations have been resolved.

Thanks, Barry Wellman _____________________________________________________________________

Barry Wellman S.D. Clark Professor of Sociology NetLab Director Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman for fun: http://chass.utoronto.ca/oldnew/cybertimes.php _____________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

-- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu

_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/