Way to undercut the point, dude.
Jun. 30th, 2009 09:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerinYesterday I was pretty sure I was going to buy Chris Anderson's book when it comes out on July 7th. (Or possibly the day after. Apparently there's a ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
s00j concert in Lincoln on the 7th, and working out the logistics of getting myself and my friends down to it may be a considerable undertaking.) Today, I'm not so sure.
Apparently, the book contains a hefty helping of plagiarism of web sources. I'm not sure if that's irony or just trying him to prove a point in a very clumsy fashion.
No, apparently, he was dissatisfied with the existing options for citing web sites as sources, given the fluid nature of the web (where even a document remains unchanged, the address from which it is retrieved can move around) and in particular on a dynamic site like a wiki, which is subject to edits by its user base.
So dissatisfied he decided it was okay not to do it.
Apparently, the editor of Wired somehow missed the fact that kipedia not only stores previous versions of a page but it comes with a "cite this" function that generates a citation for them that functions as a permanent link to that version. Well, as permanent as kipedia itself is. It could conceivably cease to exist at some point in the future. But so could any other cited source.
In his explanation, he says:
That could have been interesting if done right. If he was dissatisfied with the results of citing a fluid source from within a fixed medium, he could have done something innovative, like a bibliographical footnote directing readers to a dynamic attribution page. But he'd still need to have the fixed in-print version, because what happens if the dynamic version goes offline, or stops being maintained? Back in the early day of the web era, lots of people bought equipment (like all those stripped-down computers intended to function as internet access gadgets for people who wanted the internet but didn't want to own a whole computer) that depended on web sites or online services that later ceased to exist.
Gah. This pisses me off. I can't help but think that at some level, this carelessness was a result of him thinking, "It's the web, it's a wiki, this stuff is not as important." A Wired editor should be beyond the middle school attitude of "LOL DUDE IT'S JUST PIXELS AND ELECTRONS, COPYWRITE WHAT?", but that's exactly what this reeks of. And what really bothers me about this is that content being repeated without attribution or with the wrong attribution undercuts the value the free flow of information has for producers of content.
And all of that is not even getting into speculation that he avoided citing kipedia so that the resulting contents would not be caught up in the terms of their Creative Commons license. Under the licensing terms for kipedia, you can reproduce their content under the following terms:
The case could very easily be made that you're not enmeshed in the license if your use of the work is already covered by the doctrine of Fair Use, as by its very nature Fair Use means that the owner of the content doesn't have a say in what you're doing.
But What Mr. Anderson has done gives the impression that he was trying to get around the license. Circumventing the licensing requirements for distributing someone's content has a name. It starts with a "p" and ends with an "iracy". If Mr. Anderson had wanted to use some commercial product or service in the creation of his work and then found out that they charged a fee he would have found onerous to pay, I think we can assume he would have simply looked for an alternative instead of using it anyway. Setting up a webpage to cite kipedia instead of following their licensing terms is a lot like those disclaimers people put up on their download pages that say "I DON'T OWN ANY OF THIS AND I DON'T CLAIM OWNERSHIP SO PLZ DON'T SUE KTHXBAI".
Again, an editor of a magazine like Wired should know better.
s00j concert in Lincoln on the 7th, and working out the logistics of getting myself and my friends down to it may be a considerable undertaking.) Today, I'm not so sure.Apparently, the book contains a hefty helping of plagiarism of web sources. I'm not sure if that's irony or just trying him to prove a point in a very clumsy fashion.
No, apparently, he was dissatisfied with the existing options for citing web sites as sources, given the fluid nature of the web (where even a document remains unchanged, the address from which it is retrieved can move around) and in particular on a dynamic site like a wiki, which is subject to edits by its user base.
So dissatisfied he decided it was okay not to do it.
Apparently, the editor of Wired somehow missed the fact that kipedia not only stores previous versions of a page but it comes with a "cite this" function that generates a citation for them that functions as a permanent link to that version. Well, as permanent as kipedia itself is. It could conceivably cease to exist at some point in the future. But so could any other cited source.
In his explanation, he says:
I think what we’ll do is publish those notes after all, online as they should have been to begin with. That way the links are live and we don’t have to wrestle with how to freeze them in time, which is what threw me in the first place…
That could have been interesting if done right. If he was dissatisfied with the results of citing a fluid source from within a fixed medium, he could have done something innovative, like a bibliographical footnote directing readers to a dynamic attribution page. But he'd still need to have the fixed in-print version, because what happens if the dynamic version goes offline, or stops being maintained? Back in the early day of the web era, lots of people bought equipment (like all those stripped-down computers intended to function as internet access gadgets for people who wanted the internet but didn't want to own a whole computer) that depended on web sites or online services that later ceased to exist.
Gah. This pisses me off. I can't help but think that at some level, this carelessness was a result of him thinking, "It's the web, it's a wiki, this stuff is not as important." A Wired editor should be beyond the middle school attitude of "LOL DUDE IT'S JUST PIXELS AND ELECTRONS, COPYWRITE WHAT?", but that's exactly what this reeks of. And what really bothers me about this is that content being repeated without attribution or with the wrong attribution undercuts the value the free flow of information has for producers of content.
And all of that is not even getting into speculation that he avoided citing kipedia so that the resulting contents would not be caught up in the terms of their Creative Commons license. Under the licensing terms for kipedia, you can reproduce their content under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
- Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.
The case could very easily be made that you're not enmeshed in the license if your use of the work is already covered by the doctrine of Fair Use, as by its very nature Fair Use means that the owner of the content doesn't have a say in what you're doing.
But What Mr. Anderson has done gives the impression that he was trying to get around the license. Circumventing the licensing requirements for distributing someone's content has a name. It starts with a "p" and ends with an "iracy". If Mr. Anderson had wanted to use some commercial product or service in the creation of his work and then found out that they charged a fee he would have found onerous to pay, I think we can assume he would have simply looked for an alternative instead of using it anyway. Setting up a webpage to cite kipedia instead of following their licensing terms is a lot like those disclaimers people put up on their download pages that say "I DON'T OWN ANY OF THIS AND I DON'T CLAIM OWNERSHIP SO PLZ DON'T SUE KTHXBAI".
Again, an editor of a magazine like Wired should know better.