One aspect of this: compare the discussions in
my paper "Why Knowledge is Merely True Belief", section 3 (Journal of Philosophy, 1992),
in Ward Jones's paper "Why Do We Value Knowledge?", section 2 (American Philosophical Quarterly, 1997)
and in Linda Zagzebski's paper "The Search for the Source of the Epistemic Good", section 1 (Metaphilosophy, 2003).
They are remarkably similar.
This is how my students appropriate, when they do: they cut and paste off Wikipedia (or whatever it may be), then replace a few synonyms with synonyms, recast slightly, etc. Both Jones and Zagzebski do that with my discussion.
But I call Zagzebski's plagiarism and not Jones's. Jones does introduce the argument with a quote from me, and I feel he does enough to avoid plagiarism. For one thing, someone interested in this argument or this question would naturally be directed to my papers by Jones's discussion.
Now it is just possible that Zagzebski cribbed the discussion from Jones. But then, she does not footnote Jones at all, so that would also be misconduct. And I will say again that though Zagzebski does give a reference to my papers, it is just a wave that indicates no connection at all to the relevant argument. I feel she does directly misuse the material, either mine (pretty obviously, I think) or Jones's. Either way...
