For me, the most interesting part of rhizomatic rather than arborescent thinking is, that it allows for networked complex patterns rather than just stubborn rules, which may be simple, or hierarchically nested and complicated (if written in Legalese), but always black and white. Similarly, in rhizomatic thinking, rigid “what is” definitions may be supplemented by rather associative meanings that may answer questions like “how does it relate to?”.
However, in the first few days of the Rhizo14 MOOC, I have read the words “rules” and “definition” more often than in months before. In the lively debate, people seems to get polarized by provocative suggestions.
I also am surprised that English is short of words for the many shades of grey that can be expressed by the German translations of “cheat”, while usually we have much less words and more different word senses.
But also over here, too many different things are confused and lumped together by (often mindless) drill of the formalities of citation rules: (a) assuring the traceability of scholarly knowledge, (b) acknowledging someone else’s ideas, or (c) using a rightholder’s works. No wonder that students’ questioning (c) finally percolates through (a).