This column written in a paper by Alicia

This column written in the paper "Electronic Fences or Free-Range Students: Should Schools Use Internet Filtering Software?" by David Pownell and Gerald Bailey, published in Learning & Leading With Technology, September 1999

This column contains explanations.

Words in red are Pownell and Bailey's (either thoughts or paraphrases) with identical words in her paper. Green shows identical quotes from sources.

There is little argument that students should not be exposed to some types of information such as pornography, hate speech, slander and violence (Katz, 1996)

There is little argument that students should not be exposed to some types of information such as pornography, hate, slander and violence.

These are our words and not from Katz.

Fear is a major factor in the decision to use filters. Parents and educators fear for the safety and well-being of students. "Libraries and schools are not as safe a place as they used to be," says Sandi Zappa of Keep Internet Decent and Safe (Taafe, 1997, p. 4).

Fear is a major factor in the decision to use filters. Parents and educators have a fear for the safety and well-being of students. "Libraries [or schools] are not as safe a place as they used to be," pointed outSandi Zappa of the group known as K.I.D.S. (Keep Internet Decent and Safe). (Taaffe, 1997, ¶. 4).

These words are ours. Fear is not mentioned in the source article.

[or schools] was added by us and was not part of the original quote.

Identical quotes.

Proponents of filtering software believe that filters protect children from harmful information (Kristol, 1995).

New York University Professor Irving Kristol (1995) says that filters protect children from harmful information. He stated that if you believe that no one has ever been corrupted by a book, then you must also believe that no one has been improved by a book" (p. 3). Minnesota State Representative Charlie Weaver (R) pointed out that "if you can't have the stuff in your bookstore or in the library, then you shouldn't be able to have access to it on the Internet" (Qualey, 1997, p. 2).

Proponents of filtering software, such as New York University Professor Irving Kristol, feel that filters protect children from harmful information. He stated that "...if you believe that no one has ever been corrupted by a book, then you must also believe that no one has been improved by a book" (Kristol, 1995, ¶. 3). ... Minnesota State Representative Charlie Weaver (R-Anoka) pointed out that "[i]f you can't have the stuff in your bookstore or in the library, then you shouldn't be able to have access to it on the Internet" (Qualey, 1997, ¶. 2).

Kristol does not address filters specifically but censorship in general.

He does not say " filters protect children from harmful information."

These words are ours.

Two identical quotes.

Using filtering software without knowing what sites are blocked by the software company puts schools in the position of unintentionally censoring materials that are constitutionally protected (Kubota, 1997). Kubota writes that this could leave schools open to lawsuits of infringements of students' First Amendment rights. Filters may also increase liability by claiming that they can keep students out of objectionable sites when in fact there is no way to guarantee that (McKenzie, 1996).

Using filtering software without knowing what sites are blocked and which are not, puts schools in the position of unintentionally censoring materials which are constitutionally protected. Kubota (1997) noted that this is called "unconstitutional overbreadth" and could leave schools open to laws suits of infringements of students' First Amendment rights. Filters may also increase liability by claiming that they can keep students out of objectionable sites when in fact there is no way to guarantee that (McKenzie, 1996).

These are our paraphrases from two different works.

Almost identical wording.

Parents and educators fear for the safety and well-being of students.

These fears have persuaded many that the Internet needs control, and software filtering is a good way to do it. Most of the time, however, little thought is given to who controls the way that filters work and what the agendas of the filtering software manufacturers are (Pownell & Bailey, 1998).

Parents and educators have a fear for the safety and well-being of students.

These fears have convinced people that the Internet needs control and software filtering is a good way to do it. Most of the time, however, little thought is given to who controls the way that filters work and what the agendas are of the filtering companies.

She gave us credit here but used improper quoting techniques.

This is the only one of these issues that can be chalked up to improper citations.

Kubota (1997) writes that software companies who make the filters are in a position to wield great control as to what is and is not blocked. Most of them employ "predetermined" blocking, which uses databases of sites to be blocked.

Software companies who make the filters are in a position to wield great control as to what is and is not blocked. Most of them use "predetermined" blocking which uses databases of sites to be blocked (Kubota, 1997).

These are our words, not Kubota's.

The paraphrases are identical except for one word.

Unfortunately for schools, most companies keep their lists of sites secret. McCullagh (1998) noted that "with the exception of Net Nanny, every other censorware manufacturer treats its blacklist of thousands of forbidden sites as a trade secret and refuses to divulge its contents" (p. 5).

Unfortunately for schools, most companies keep their lists of sites secret. McCullagh (1998, ¶. 5) noted that "[w]ith the exception of Net Nanny, every other censorware manufacturer treats its blacklist of thousands of forbidden sites as a trade secret and refuses to divulge its contents."

Identical paraphrase.

Identical quote.

Guevara (1998) writes that schools need to have control over their curriculums and decide for themselves what is appropriate.Because of the diversity in America, topics that are appropriate in one school may not be in another.

Schools need to have control over their curriculum and decide for themselves what is appropriate or not. There is much diversity in America and topics that are appropriate in one school may not be in another.

Guevara does not "write" that "schools need to have control over their curriculums and decide for themselves what is appropriate." He does not say this. These are our words.

The decision whether to filter should be based on local values and the ages of the students involved (Harris, 1998).

The decision whether to filter Internet access should be based on local values, the educational philosophy of the institutions involved, the manner [in which] the Internet is integrated into the curriculum and the ages of the students involved as well as review of the costs and benefits of the various software options (Harris, 1998, p. 2).

Use of the same long quote. Hers is truncated.