How to avoid plagiarizing common knowledge?

[hellovn]

I have done quite a bit of reading about plagiarizing for common knowledges. Most of the suggestions are "over citing" is better than "under citing". However, It is a bit weird for a conference paper to over citing. I have written a few conference style papers but I felt I under cited my paper as I copied the common knowledge from a book or Wikipedia and rephrased the ideas. I didn't have any problems with any professors, but I am not sure how other students do it.

 

Please share your knowledge and experience?

[C10H12N2O]

I think it would be beneficial for you to give an example of what you are referring to as 'common knowledge' and what discipline you're working under. 

Some examples of 'common knowledge' that I would cite:

 

-A person's date of birth, date of death, living location or anything about their life

-A theory or principal that is not your own

-Any research that you are extending/gave rise to your hypothesis or thesis. Give credit where credit is due.

Edited February 9, 2015 by C10H12N2O

[hellovn]

This is an example:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis(SNA)

 

Social Network Analysis is a theory and I don't think anyone invent it. How to cite it correctly? I got some ideas about SNA in this book train.ed.psu.edu/WFED-543/SocNet_TheoryApp.pdf.

 

I still feel citing that book is inappropriate as I could get those ideas from anywhere.

[C10H12N2O]

But its not your idea so you should be citing it. Cite a paper or a book that goes in dept discussing the theory. 

Edited February 9, 2015 by C10H12N2O

[rising_star]

You could get them from anywhere, but you didn't. You should cite that book since you're using their idea of social network analysis, not your own.

[.letmeinplz//]

But its not your idea so you should be citing it. Cite a paper or a book that goes in dept discussing the theory. 

So does everyone cite Newton for gravity?

[C10H12N2O]

So does everyone cite Newton for gravity?

 

 

If you just mention gravity without discussing it I would say you do not have to cite it (e.g., one sentence without discussing the laws of gravity). If you are discussing it more depth than the example above than you should cite Newton or at least cite a paper/book that discusses gravity. 

Anything that is not your original idea needs to be cited, even if the theory/laws are common knowledge in your field. If you're worried about having too many citations than you could say something like: "the laws of gravity are complex (see Newton, 1687).". 

If you want to discuss it in further detail keep in mind that you only have to cite Newton once. After this original citation it should be clear to the reader that you are continuing to discuss Newton's ideas. You do not have to make another citation until you begin to discuss another book/paper/theory.

Please keep in mind that gravity is outside my field of expertise and that it is not the topic that the OP is inquiring about. 

Edited February 10, 2015 by C10H12N2O

[TakeruK]

Gravity is in my field, and you definitely do not cite it Generally, in the physical sciences, we do not cite things that are more than say, 100 years old. In my opinion, we (people in my field) cite for two reasons: 1) to give credit where credit is due, and 2) to allow the reader to find more information on the topic when necessary (especially if we use other people's ideas without a full explanation). Reason 1 isn't as important for people who worked more than 100 years ago, but reason 2 is often important!

 

For example, the oldest citation I've ever made was from the 1800s from a guy named Hill for his idea of the "Hill sphere" (i.e. a region very close to a planet where the planet's gravitational influence is stronger than the star's gravitational influence). I cited this for Reason 2, because although experts in my field know what a Hill sphere is, the typical reader of my paper might not. However, if I talk about Gravity in general, or Maxwell's laws for electromagnetism, we do not cite. Basically, if it's something you learn in your freshman physics class, it would count as "common knowledge" in my field.

 

My advice specific to the OP is to read what other people in your field do when discussing this specific piece of information (or similar information). When you write your papers, you do a literature review anyways so you are generally reading a lot of very similar papers. Follow the norms in your field!

[brown_eyed_girl]

I agree with TakeruK. If it's common knowledge to the point that you and most people would know it, you probably don't need to cite, but sometimes you would to provide info to the reader. When in doubt, it never hurts to add a footnote that says, "for more on this concept, see the following." I also find it useful to cite for stuff like this when sources differ - for example, when dates are given variously in different sources, you can always state that in your footnotes.