Viewport width =
August 13, 2007 | by  | in News |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

Turnitin not actually as crap as we thought last week

Flaws highlighted in a plagiarism-detection system used by the University have been explained by the Deputy Head of the Law School, Gordon Stewart.

In last week’s Salient, it was reported that British lecturer Simeon Yates used Turnitin to test his own work for copied material and found that it failed to recognise his submission was 100 percent copied from his own previously-published output.

Turnitin is an online system used by a number of faculties which checks submissions against both current and archived internet content, commercial databases of periodicals and previously submitted material.

Stewart believes that Yates’ research results were “merely sensational [rather] than valid.” “Unless Yates’ first piece [was] on the Turnitin database, this will happen,” he says, “[He] should have run his previously published piece through… and then later run his second piece through.”

Stewart added that he often ran work through the system twice and conceded that while Turnitin was not yet a perfect system, it would improve as its database grew.

Stephen Marshall, Acting Director at the University’s Teaching Development Centre, confirmed Stewart’s interpretation of Yates’ findings, and noted that Turnitin greatly reduced the work that University staff needed to do to document and resolve plagiarism problems.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Comments (2)

Trackback URL / Comments RSS Feed

  1. ajay says:

    The bichs imeges

  2. >

    Ah OK: if I understand correctly, we should instruct students to please first run the texts they plagiarize from through the system before they submit their plagiarisms?

    I had almost exactly the same experience as professor Yates when I tested Ephorus, a European imitation of Turnitin. Everything went fine when I fed it the German text about Edison in http://www.forschungsstandort.ch/webexplorer.cfm?ID=1&tlid=1 : it recognised the forschungsstandort source, and the Wikipedia article forschungsstandort had itself plagiarized from.

    But when I submitted the French translation of this text as in http://www.forschungsstandort.ch/webexplorer.cfm?id=1&tlid=2 , ephorus was unable to find any match on the web. A Google search for the sentence “Son mérite tient principalement au caractère commercialisable de ses inventions” gave http://www.forschungsstandort.ch/webexplorer.cfm?id=1&tlid=2 as the first and only hit.

    Ephorus’ demo is free (non paying) until the end of October, so it was fun trying it. But what’s the point of paying huge fees for comparative plagiarism detection systems that perform worse than a search engine on Internet material, that cannot possibly access what gets exchanged in private forums, wikis, mailing-lists, e-mails and Google Docs pages?

Recent posts

  1. An (im)possible dream: Living Wage for Vic Books
  2. Salient and VUW tussle over Official Information Act requests
  3. One Ocean
  4. Orphanage voluntourism a harmful exercise
  5. Interview with Grayson Gilmour
  6. Political Round Up
  7. A Town Like Alice — Nevil Shute
  8. Presidential Address
  9. Do You Ever Feel Like a Plastic Bag?
  10. Sport
1

Editor's Pick

In Which a Boy Leaves

: - SPONSORED - I’ve always been a fairly lucky kid. I essentially lucked out at birth, being born white, male, heterosexual, to a well off family. My life was never going to be particularly hard. And so my tale begins, with another stroke of sheer luck. After my girlfriend sugge