One person’s research might be another person’s plagiarism but really it should be more than a matter of opinion. The differences between the two should be obvious. It should also be obvious that someone hasn’t just done a straight rewrite of another’s material.

When I research for an article, online or off, I consult many  different sources. Usually I’ll look online first because that is quicker and easier but then I will consult reference books, either my own or in the library.

I want to ensure that all facts are accurate. Often I have seen online where people have just repeated another person’s mistakes, usually word for word.  I look at who writes the information and their background. Is that person an expert? Many Wikipedia articles are good for this because they usually put a reference to the sources of facts and statistics so it’s possible to see how authoritative those sources are.

I believe that the major difference between research and plagiarism is to take the information collected and to approach it from a different angle to most other people. Don’t just regurgitate a whole load of facts, making your lens or web page interchangeable with all the others on the same subject. Filter it through your own personal experience or opinions. You don’t have to use every fact you collected, either. You can pick and choose those that fit in with your piece and just put a link to a good source for the basic information. Alternatively, you could have a separate section called something like Quick Facts in which you list important points.

Perhaps the most personal angle I’ve ever written from on what appears an unrelated subject is when I wrote about the band Queen, their hit Radio Gaga and their 1984 London concert. The Squidoo lens is called Maybe Queen Saved my Life.

Your angle doesn’t need to be so offbeat, unusual and personal as that but it should differentiate your work from all the other webpages on the subject.