I think this require some careful meditation. The answer can be a yes or no depending on the source of the information, the sensitivity, local law guiding it and how it was used. It may not be appropriate to call it plagiarism when he or she has not claimed ownership.

If the information is actively circulating in the community and the community member is conversant with it, I do not see how plagiarism would apply. There are numerous examples of indigenous peoples employing information collected by anthropologists and these range from the works of Franz Boas on the Northwest Coast peoples, to Raymond Firth's "We the Tikopia:...".

Plagiarism is when someone pretends to be the owner of an idea and publish it in an academic journal or outlet as his own imagination. But a traditional knowledge belongs to a community and has been transmitted from generation to generation for decades and centuries. So when someone even an insider publish a traditional knowledge of a community, he owes the existence of that knowledge to all the ancestors that had produced and transmitted that knowledge. So publishing this knowledge is tranfering it from a traditional context regulated by comunality to an individualised context ; a context of ‘I am..’’ in stead of ‘’We are…’’ Publishing such a knowledge either by an outsider or insider is probably not a plagiarism but a debt towards those who produced and transmitted it along decades.

In my opinion it would not be taxonomy, in fact anyone arrogant enough to publish detailed TEK would be in violation of Intellectual Property Rights. I publish a good deal on TEK, but I am careful never to include details of specific ceremonies or rituals. I keep my arguments general and try to link them to western approaches, so that people can see that these ideas predate Western Science.

If anyone wants to see how I do this I make my book on Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science for anyone who wishes to to see how to do this.

[Raymond_Pierotti]_Indigenous_Knowledge,_Ecology,_(BookFi.org).pdf

No. Its`s not. Traditional kwnoledge is on comunity problems.

Sr. Bracho is correct. Individuals can hold specific knowledge, but this should never be published unless the keeper of the knowledge agrees to share it,

Agree with Douglas Raybeck . and Raymond Pierotti

. Yes publish when the keeper of the knowledge agrees to share it

Thank you Mr. Raymond Pierotti. Like this. I`m going to translate to Spanish language. I hope you can understand me.

Mis ùltimos trabajo han sido elaborados en la interacciòn con la comunidades tanto nativas como afrodescendientes del Sur del Lago. Tengo años trabajando con comunidades agricolas y netamente pecuarias. Mi trabajo doctoral se hizo sobre los saberes populares. Las comunidades necesitan el reconocimiento de su alteridad pero no es un requisito para la expasion de su conocimientos que lo han adquirido del intercambio de sus realidades y sus pràcticas cotidianas; el aprendizaje empìrico . Representa su cosmogonìa , una manera de estar integrados, una representaciòn del otro. Por ejemplo, uno viene a una universidad aprender còmo se castra un animal, còmo se emplea se emplean medicamentos que provienen en su mayorìa de la naturaleza pero para estas comunidades son pràcticas habituales. Por supuesto, en ningùn momento debemos obviar la importancia de la ciencia ni la tecnologìa pero para ellos se hace importante que la ciencia tambièn reconozca cual es la importancia del conocimiento llamado por muchos vulgar y no vea esos aprendizajes como exposiciones vitrales. Sacar a las comunidades de sus saberes ancestrales serìa deshistorizarnos.

Someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own is called plagiarism. To the best of my knowledge, getting an idea or medication from a tribal member was deemed plagiarism. You can take the drug on your own if you come up with a novel notion about it.

Buenas tardes. Los saberes de los pueblos son originarios y representan una manera y una forma de observar e interpretar la realidad. No estàn superditados a ninguna cienca porque petenecen a todos. No se llenan del egoìsmo subyacente en la cientificidad. Lo que tiene que hacer la ciencia y muchos cientificos es aceptarlos como suma de valores culturales y reconstrucciòn històrica de la memoria los pueblos. Son de todos y de nadie. Son universales. Gracias por tu opiniòn.

I am not sure exactly what Dr. Dharshini is trying to say, but if an idea or story is in general circulation or has been published you can publish it as long as you cite your source(s). Dr. Dharshini seems to be conflating taking someones else's work without proper attribution or citation, which would be plagiarism, with learning a story from another individual and publishing it with full attribution, which is not. This is simply citing a colleague the way we do all the time in science and scholarship. This is the point of Introduction and Lit Cited sections in papers, to acknowledge the work of those who have proceeded us.

That`correct my friend but not popular knowledge. Estos son fruto del aprendizaje producto de la experiencia, del ensayo y del error del transitar de los seres humanos por la tierra. Mal podrìamos categorizarlos como propiedad privada e individual. Es màs podrìamos agregarlos como parte de nuestra evoluciòn.

Yes if it is published, and used without acknowledging the author.