For folks still in academia - odds are if you had a particularly strict prof this would still be considered plagiarism unless you cited the source (unless the fact is widely known in which case you just have to preface with something that indicates or implies what you’re saying is general knowledge. I don’t have to cite a source that the Moon orbits the Earth, for example - we’ve known that for literally centuries).
What they mean when they say “use your own words, don’t just copy the book” is actually “take information from multiple sources, read it, analyze it, and collate it into something new that is your own creation.” Yanno that saying, “If you steal from one author, it’s plagiarism. If you steal from many, it’s research.”? (fun fact: this common expression is itself an example of the very thing it describes - if you like etymology and idioms, you can look up the history of the expression here) Yeah. Academia works exactly this way. If you write a paper with only one source, it’s still basically plagiarism, you haven’t put any original thought or effort into making something new.
If, instead, you fact-check your source with other sources and get a diverse range of (reputable) opinions on the subject, you can pull it all together into something new. Even though none of the facts you’re presenting are new, your conclusions and your presentation are your own. It is wholly your creation, building off the work of those who’ve gone before - exactly as Newton meant when he said, “ If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Which is also a great example of collecting concepts from many sources and distilling them to their essence in your own work.
tangentwithtanner
stormborns
