Comments on: On Attribution, The Ars Technica Story

By: sbspalding

sbspalding — Wed, 14 May 2008 23:35:52 +0000

That's exactly right Maggy, though I think there is still some bias towards promoting the site who “gets there first” it's even written into the community guidelines of many of the social bookmarking sites.

Though, again, Ars does link out quite often so I am not sure how deep this problem goes with them. It is, however, a problem in a general sense.

By: Maggy Young

Maggy Young — Wed, 14 May 2008 23:30:32 +0000

“For them, linking out would be etc”… . Assuming a number of reasonably good articles, each having one or probably far more links, then readers are not pushed to any one alternative 'real source'. Also the various sources for many reasons would mostly not constitute an alternative to that blog. Blogs/news reports tend to act as filters / aggregators & most importantly commentators on news which readers have often already picked up. The value should be in the quality of the article, not that they were the first to report on something.

By: sbspalding

sbspalding — Wed, 14 May 2008 20:02:07 +0000

Your point is spot on. When a particular “style”' becomes popular in the blogosphere it tends to blossom out. Whether it's the weekend Techmeme “debate” or just a story that everyone has to pick up. It leads to 1000 people going after the same prize, and I am not sure how good that is for the eco-system.

Some of the fault can be shifted to the way that PR and embargoes work in the blogosphere, but at the end of the day we still have to be the ones who are held responsible for the stories we run and how we run them.

By: ophelia_chong

ophelia_chong — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:56:26 +0000

I see most Blogs as quilts sewn together from disparate bits from the web. I see my artwork pop up on other blogs and sites, some attributed but most do.

What is more disturbing is the Herd Effect. One blog will be getting the hits, so other blogs follow in their wake hoping to pick up traffic, by using the same information. Its Dodge ball, you can keep playing by not attributing, but one day that Ball is going to hit you and you are out of the game.

By: sbspalding

sbspalding — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:06:36 +0000

I agree. In my experience they have been very good at linking out. I was just pointing out one plausible argument that would justify avoiding certain links.

I am still not sold on the entire attribution scandal. I do think it does bring up a more general point – how important proper attribution is.

By: Grant

Grant — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:42:25 +0000

“For them, linking out would be admitting that they weren’t the ones who broke the story. That alone could drive hungry social bookmarkers to push through to find the “real source” of the article.”

I just checked all of their front page stories and every one links to multiple sites. Many of them explicitly say who was first to report a story. This is better than I see most sites doing….

Like jeber, I read Ars as a filter site on news, so what would be the point if Ars didn't link outside itself? MG's accusations that the site holds stories for days and days and steals from bloggers just does not pass the sniff test. I read Ars 6 day a week. That's not going on there. They are very timely, they break a lot of news, and they link out all the time. I woudn't be surprised if they screw up on occaision– who doesn't? Frankly, I just wish they would get better editors, they have too many grammar errors on their site.

By: jeber

jeber — Tue, 13 May 2008 07:48:46 +0000

I'm convinced by two arguments.
I think it's a matter of common courtesy to acknowledge the original source of a post, image or comment. Image is nearly all we have on the internet unless you live your cyber life as "anonymous". Unless one enjoys a reputation as untrustworthy, one should give credit where credit is due.
I also agree the purpose of the internet, the thing that makes it the internet, is the hyperlink. I don't think less of anyone simply because they are linking to an original post rather than having written it themselves. I think of blogs like Ars Technica as portals to interesting content. They're a filter. I don't expect them to be the original source for every story I read there. I'm sorry if it hurts their bottom line. If they are willing to trade transparency for profit, that will become their image and that will stick in my mind every time I read a story there in the future.
I'll withhold a decision on the allegations until I can see whether or not the evidence supports it. It might be a perception issue, and who gets to choose which perception is more accurate? It could be a coincidence, they do happen. Or it could be as MG Siegler claims.
No publication that depends on ad revenues for its support, in print or online, has the liberty to ignore accusations of plagiarism. Ars needs to either absolve themselves of guilt or change their policies and admit their mistake.

By: Crunchy Carpets

Crunchy Carpets — Tue, 13 May 2008 07:44:29 +0000

Well I am glad that people are complaining about this stuff....true or not..there are a LOT of sites that don't link or attribute..usually HUGE news portal type sites with STAFF that have the time to digg and all that.

It shows lack of professionalism and respect and poor ethics for the management and editorial staff.

It is a problem that has been around the webosphere for a loooong time and in all areas...movie sites, tech, etc.

I have said it before..to earn respect as a place of REAL news or information...you need to at least TRY to act like a REAL journalist and follow basic journalistic practices like attribution and links.