Re: web sources and plagiarism

grapesmoker <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:12:42 -0000

--- In quizbowl_at_y..., "bucktowntiger" <jdh22_at_c...> wrote:
> On expertise:  I perceived disgust among some posts concerning the 
> writing of questions by non-experts in the subject field, 
especially 
> science questions written by non-science experts.  There are other 
> ways to gain expertise in a field (at least quizbowl-worthy 
> expertise), namely by studying the right sources and *writing 
> questions.*  The term "major" was used in preceding posts, and I 
> adopted the term "major" to illustrate my point that one should 
not 
> have to read the whole Mahabharata to write a good tossup on it.

I don't have anything against non-science majors writing good 
science questions. What I'm emphatically opposed to is things like 
etymology of scientific terms or "element from number" questions 
passing themselves off as science. If you're not a science type and 
you want to write a good science question, there are endless 
textbooks at your disposal, not to mention any of your 
scientifically inclined friends. But don't write lame questions and 
then get upset when people think those questions are a load of ass.

> I agree that using sources verbatim is a bad practice, but if 
> quizbowl lashes out against the total use of concise reference 
> sources (Benet's included), then the process of submitting an 
> acceptable packet will be like writing fifty or more in-depth 
> research papers.  Surely no team wants to do that for each 
> tournament.  Also, this lashing-out against the use of non-primary 
> reference sources will discourage young players from writing 
> questions and improving their quizbowl aptitude out of fear of 
being 
> prosecuted by Britannica and spending their prime reproductive 
years 
> in a forced-labor camp.

I don't think anyone was against using reference sources to write 
questions. What is bad is when popular reference sources are quoted 
verbatim. I know I don't write fifty research papers when I write 
questions, but I do try to write on topics where I have a feel for 
what information from a reference source goes where in the question, 
instead of just quoting the source blindly.

> Besides, which is better for improving quizbowl aptitude:  reading 
> two hundred short literature summaries and learning a little bit 
> about each work, so that one is able to answer a question on any 
of 
> the two-hundred works somewhere around the "for ten points" mark; 
or 
> reading four full-length novels in-depth, so that one is able to 
> answer questions on those four works in the first sentence?
> 
> Not counting bonus conversion, I think the first method would win 
> 2000 to 40.

Sure, I guess if all you care about is being a really good quizbowl 
player, memorizing two hundred literature summaries is propbably the 
way to go. To me, however, this seems to be contrary to the spirit 
of the game. Excessive studying for quizbowl will undoubtedly make 
you a better player, but I would argue that reading five novels in-
depth will make you a more educated, well-rounded, and interesting 
person, qualities which I think are to be valued above the ability 
to recall novels from plot summaries.

Jerry, who recently finished reading "The Story of the World Cup" by 
Brian Glanville, Britain's most celebrated football journalist