Plagiarism, Wikipedia and Why I Don't Mind That Fisherman Should Have Been Illiterate

Originally Posted 07/26/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine

Okay, class, our lesson today is about not being stupid. Sorry it's so long, but there's alot to say and it's good and it's on my mind, so deal...For those of you too lazy to read for ten minutes, here's a rundownI. A person should not allow his/her work to be identified with a specific name or organizationII. perhaps a pseudonym works, especially if the work is attributed to a mythical, legendary or heroic figure, transcendent of the pitfalls of man. This is the beauty of the bible and why it may actually be better to admit the unauthenticity of some books of the bible.III. Corporate authorship and a disregard for any concern of plagiarism or intellectual property accomplishes much in allowing a work to be valued as it should and not according to the author of the work. This is why wikipedia is brilliant. I came to realize today, while driving home from work, that five years of my life are and forever will be identified with three words. All the thoughts I had, all of the hopes and dreams, all of the effort and hours upon hours per week of toiling have been lost to an identity of a group. I only realized this the other day as I read a friend's blog where he identified a part of his life as "the skuf years" It hit me like a brick wall that my work, too, is identified inseperably with this name. What's the problem with this? It seems to me that being identified as such with a name (particularly the name of an arguably unsuccessful and certainly man-made group) devalues the work that was done. Now, it's not that I regret the work or think that it was done in vain or even view the work as unsuccessful in any way. But by being associated with the now defunct group, the work is devalued to those who may (or may not) have benefited from the work. With this in mind, I have today determined to at least attempt never again to allow my work to be identified with a name. Now, of course, I realize this is impossible because I have a name, which most of you who read this know and connecting the dots, identify these words with my name. (this isn't to mention the impossibility of separation from identity due to our society's infatuation with a success which depends on a personal identity) This inevitable identification with name brings us next to anonymity and pseudononymous authorship (specifically that in the bible) The author of I and II Peter, by using the name Peter attached a significance to his words that could otherwise never have been attained. And here's why...if Joe Early Christian puts his own name on the work, it takes on his identity and therefore is dependent upon Joe's contributions throughout his entire life, regardless of the powerful and far-reaching words that may have been in his work. So if Joe is a schmuck who managed to produce two awesome papers, his papers become the papers of a schmuck. However, if Joe produces two awesome papers and attributes them to Peter, then all we have are two papers attributed to Peter that contain powerful and far-reaching words and ideas. This brings us to the benefits of common property of ideas. The concept of plagiarism, as I understand it, did not exist in the ancient world (and probably developed as a result of the aforementioned infatuation with personal success) All ideas were put out and bleonged to the public good. This allows these ideas to build upon one another, idea altering idea and perspective re-centering perspective. Let's take the example of John. Many Christians would defend wholeheartedly the idea that John, the apostle selected by Jesus, wrote the book of John. But, to me, the idea that a community of believers contributed to the book over the course of a couple hundred of years is far more advantageous, regardless of its implications for the integrity of the biblical canon. The effects of the two approaches can be seen in a comparison of John to the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) because while the three are subject to the all too popular criticisms of being contradictory and inconsistent, John is transcendent of these issues due to the process of checks and balances inherrent in a system of corporate authorship and the free sharing of ideas such as might have been seen in the Johanine community. If this blog weren't long enough, I could go into my ideas about a community overcoming the fallibility of the individual man, but suffice it to say that I believe that by sacrificing personal identification and submitting my work to the common good without attachment to myself, I allow it to take on a more transcendent identity (especially if they have the good fortune to be judged and altered as necessary by others) They then may truly be judged for the words and ideas on the page and the integrity and results of the works rather than by my personal life and identity