What does a reader need to know about the sources of information we report? What is fair to those sources in how we attribute information to them?

Those two questions guided a news staff committee as it developed principles for attribution in the pages of The Seattle Times. The group came up with what could be an industry model. The committee began its work last year after The Times was stunned by a case of plagiarism. The committee said that incident and high-profile cases at other newspapers "touched off wide-ranging conversations in the newsroom about what constituted plagiarism and, in particular, whether practices some of us engage in routinely might be unwitting violations of the profession's ban on word-stealing."

In addition to defining plagiarism, the committee set out to explore why it matters and to explain how to avoid it. Its report says:

"Plagiarism, we decided, is the representation of others' language or creative work as one's own. It's wrong, we determined, because it violates several inter-related principles that are essential to credible journalism:

"Honesty/integrity: Readers expect The Times to talk straight to them. Plagiarism is deception.

"Accuracy: Readers expect The Times to make every effort to present information that is correct. The newspaper can't vouch for the accuracy of material that is plagiarized.

"Transparency: Readers deserve to know where The Times gets the information it publishes. Plagiarism deprives them of that knowledge."

Staff writer Eric Pryne, committee co-chair, said the group held staff discussions about "what principles drive us. What is it about plagiarism that defiles those principles."

Assistant features editor Andrea Otanez, the other co-chair, said the committee's work was like "trimming our sails, going back to the fundamentals and touching them all again."

"Everybody just knows that you don't plagiarize," said Otanez, but the subtleties of proper attribution weren't nearly so clear.

The committee presented the guidelines in the form of questions and answers. Pryne said the tone of the document is " 'perhaps' and 'consider,' rather than 'never' and 'always.' "

Here's an example:

" Q. Is it OK to recycle sentences or paragraphs from a previously published article I wrote for The Times?

" A. Lifting language from one of your own old stories may be laziness, but it's not plagiarism. That said, it's probably a good idea under most circumstances to recast or reword 'boilerplate' — language that provides context or background. This isn't an ironclad rule. Sometimes a writer and editor will arrive at specific, nuanced language that accurately captures and summarizes a particularly complex issue. Using that same language in ongoing coverage may be the most responsible course. Likewise, if you've been assigned to take over a story you are not familiar with, perhaps on deadline, using a previous summarization may be the safest route — providing that material is still accurate."

The report includes tips for how reporters can avoid plagiarism. For example, "When doing background research on historical facts or a complex subject, make sure you're getting the information from at least two sources (three is better) and that they agree with one another. Read enough to understand the subject well enough to be able to put it into your own words, without having to rely on the phrasing your sources have used. Then double-check what you've written against your original sources, for two reasons: to make sure that what you've written is accurate, and to make sure you haven't accidentally borrowed too freely from one of your original sources."

The tips for editors urge them to "Practice what some papers call 'skeptical' editing: Ask lots of questions. Know where the reporter got the information. Don't hesitate to ask to see documents, and make sure references to them are paraphrased and attributed correctly."

Another editor tip says, "Watch for unattributed information in stories that would require a degree of expertise the reporter doesn't have."

The full text of the guidelines is on our Web site, www.seattletimes.com/plagiarismpolicy.

At their core, the guidelines are about trust between reporters and their sources, between reporters and editors, and between the newspaper and its readers, Pryne said. "Readers need to know we take these things seriously."

Any breakdown, added Otanez, reflects on everybody at the newspaper. "Our integrity is what we have."

Inside The Times appears in the Sunday Seattle Times. If you have a comment on news coverage, write to Michael R. Fancher, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111, call 206-464-3310 or send e-mail to mfancher@seattletimes.com. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists