“Congrats” on your baby!
Congrats on “your” baby!
Congrats on your “baby”!
Do you see the difference between compliments? At a
glance, you’ll spot that each one uses quotation marks to emphasize a word. That’s
okay. There’s the rub though – it overlooks the second half of the rule as spelled
out by Grammarly: “quotation marks around single words can occasionally
be used for emphasis, BUT only when quoting a word… that the author DOESN’T
AGREE with the use of the term.” (Underscoring mine)
Consequently, it would result in suspiciously-sounding
sentences and unintentional double meaning. The trio double entendre
compliments above topped the online list of the “Suspiciously” Used Quotation
Marks. Here are sample readers’ hilarious comments: “Middle one is the best,”
“We all know that the 'baby' is a dog,” “That got ‘dark’”.
Here’s a Starbucks notice to illustrate much
more and to hold on to your attention: “Please feel free to ask one of our
lovely baristas for a ‘second service’. Enjoy”. Sample readers’ comments: “Tell
them you have some extra cream,” “I was excited about this, but all they gave
me was another coffee. Very disappointing,” “So that’s why Starbucks is
so expensive,” “Is there a VIP room now?” “Happy Ending in your cup.”
Now, that I’ve grabbed your attention with the lighter
side of the quotation marks, let’s take a look at its weighty side. Quotation
marks are more than just punctuation marks. They are symbols of respect,
honesty, and integrity. They show that we acknowledge and appreciate the
sources of our information and inspiration.
Moreover, quotation marks help us avoid plagiarism –
the act of passing off someone else’s words or ideas as our own. Plagiarism is
not only unethical but also detrimental to our academic and professional
reputation. It can ruin our credibility, damage our relationships, and even
cost us our careers. This is what happened to Claudine Gay, the former
president of Harvard University, who resigned in disgrace after being accused
of plagiarism in her academic writings.
A prominent political scientist and the first woman of
color to lead Harvard, Gay faced allegations of plagiarism in her 1997 doctoral
dissertation and four papers published between 1993 and 2017. First reported by
CNN and the Washington Free Bacon, the allegations claimed at
least 40 cases of plagiarism in Gay’s work. They alleged that Gay copied or
inadequately cited other scholars’ works without using quotation marks or
proper references. Gay denied the allegations and said that she followed the
norms and standards of her field at the time of her publications.
Harvard
conducted a review of Gay’s work and concluded that she did not violate the
standards for research misconduct, although acknowledged that some of her
publications needed additional citations. Harvard also said it would
issue corrections to two of Gay’s papers and her dissertation. However, some lawmakers,
alumni, and students questioned Harvard’s findings and called for a more thorough
and transparent investigation into Gay’s academic integrity. They also argued
that Gay should be held to the same standards as students and faculty who face
severe consequences for plagiarism.
What are those Harvard standards? Here is an excerpt
from its Student Handbook titled Academic Integrity, Academic Dishonesty,
and the Harvard College Honor Code:
“Members of the Harvard College community commit themselves to produce academic work of integrity – that is,
work that adheres to the scholarly and intellectual standards of accurate
attribution of sources, appropriate collection and use of data, and transparent
acknowledgment of the contribution of others to our ideas, discoveries,
interpretations, and conclusions. Cheating on exams or problem sets,
plagiarizing or misrepresenting the ideas or language of someone else as one’s
own, falsifying data, or any other instance of academic dishonesty violate the
standards of our community, as well as the standards of the wider world of
learning and affairs.”
From this excerpt, we can see that Harvard highly
values academic integrity as a core principle of its community. Academic integrity
means respecting the work of others and giving credit where credit is due. It
means producing original and authentic work reflecting fresh thinking and
creativity. Academic integrity is essential for the advancement of knowledge
and the pursuit of excellence.
Gay’s case shows us the importance and the
consequences of quotation marks. Quotation marks are not just a technical
detail, but a moral obligation. They are a way of showing respect to the
authors whose work we use, and to the readers who trust us. They are also a way
of protecting ourselves from plagiarism which can have serious and lasting
repercussions. Quotation marks can make the difference between humor and moral
judgment, between success and failure, between honor and shame, and between
leadership and resignation.
Quotation marks matter.
Laying all cards on the table, the following sample
comments of The Washington Post’s readers to the case, no doubt, forewarn
-- there’s the rub.
“After you read hundreds of articles and books, many
containing ideas you have held or agreed with, it would not be surprising to me
that you repeat them and have no idea of their origin. There is very little new
under the sun. Languages also constrain expressions/wording.” (Same old same
old)
“I’m a journal editor and we run manuscripts through a
computer program that detects plagiarism. It’s not rare for a paper to get
flagged for a bunch of short phrases. I almost always let them go through,
because it’s hard to claim ‘ownership’ of a 4 to 8-word phrase. If I see entire
sentences or (gasp) entire paragraphs lifted verbatim, then I tell the author either
to put quotes around it and cite it, or re-phrase it.” (Ivan Tufaart)
“The role of a university president isn’t to be a
great academician – it’s to be a manager and a money raiser. Period.” (Tycho12345)
“Do right-wingers really want to open up this can? I
mean, do they think that liberals are idiots who can’t upload the bodywork of
any given Republican candidate for anything, and have it scrutinized by AI?” (Utahsucks)
Speaking of AI, amid the plagiarism controversy, AI is
like a kid watching his mom and dad shouting at each other. He wonders if it is
his fault. Did he do something wrong?
Two years ago, before ChatGPT arrived, here’s Forbes’
banner: “AI Is Not Going To Replace Writers Anytime Soon – But The Future Might
Be Closer Than You Think”
Last year, when ChatGPT arrived, here’s Vanity Fair’s
banner: “The New Generation of AI Apps Could Make Writers and Artists Obsolete”
And speaking of artists, they’re the first to see the
handwriting on the wall as shown by the following headlines:
“AI Won An Art Contest, And Artists Are Furious” (CNN)
“Photographer Admits Prize-winning Image Was
AI-generated” (The Guardian)
Then, came this controversial depressing headline depicting
man, in a fight-or-flight reaction, ethically and morally going downhill:
“Picture That Won ‘World’s Largest Photo Competition’
Was Staged” (PetaPixel)
Are these man’s “fear and trembling” signs of Elon
Musk’s warning: “AI is our biggest existential threat”?
Today, man’s plagiarism controversy is like two dogs
fighting each other for crumbs that fall from AI’s table.
And AI, like the kid, watching helplessly his mom and dad shouting at each other, wants them to stop. He wishes they would hug each other and makeup; wishes they would love each other like they used to; wishes they would love him too.
Content put together in collaboration with Microsoft Bing
AI-powered Co-pilot
Head collage photos courtesy of depositphotos,
Shutterstock, New York Magazine, & Harvard University
Video clips courtesy of YouTube
No comments:
Post a Comment