![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[citation needed]
Jun. 30th, 2009 11:08 amI've asked Chris Anderson for clarification about something regarding the un-cited material in Free. I have no idea if he'll acknowledge it, but he was answering comments on the subject as of a few days ago. Anyway, in his blog post on the subject, he explains that when his attribution notes were merged into the main text in the following way: whole passages were indented and attributed, intellectual debts were acknowledged inline (as in, "According to _______, cows are nifty."), and wiki-type sources were... subjected to a write-through.
In other words, stuff he had marked down as being from kipedia was rewritten until it looked original.
Other commenters pointed out that this does not absolve him of what he very aptly calls "intellectual debt" to the source. He says:
Emphasis added by me. I asked him to clarify - does this mean when he did the "write-throughs" of wiki-matter, he did not acknowledge them in-line?
If so, then his apology for the parts he "missed"--the verbatim quotes that did not receive a "write-through"--are a smokescreen for a far worse issue: he was deliberately obscuring sources in order to avoid having to credit them. There's no question that this could have been done out of uncertainty of how to best make sure the sources were credited. He did extra work to duck the issue.
And what's worse, unlike the parts he "missed" in his "write-throughs", there will never be any way of knowing how often he did it and how much of the book consists of it. In terms of intellectual honesty, of creative integrity, of that "intellectual debt" he speaks so loftily of, the entire work stands now as the fruit of a poisonous tree[1].
[1] Thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
popelizbet for suggesting this phrase.
In other words, stuff he had marked down as being from kipedia was rewritten until it looked original.
Other commenters pointed out that this does not absolve him of what he very aptly calls "intellectual debt" to the source. He says:
I agree that write-throughs are not the best solution, given that they only avoid using the same words but not the same ideas. I think perhaps the best way would be to cite Wikipedia ("according to the Wikipedia entry on the subject", which is a form I actually use elsewhere in the book), quote the quotable bits and then rewrite the rest. That way the intellectual debt is acknowledged, but the words are not shared (outside of quotes). In other words, a combination of attribution, quoting and rewriting. Meanwhile the exact URL citation can go in the online notes or in the endnotes, with or without timestamp as the author and publisher decide.
Emphasis added by me. I asked him to clarify - does this mean when he did the "write-throughs" of wiki-matter, he did not acknowledge them in-line?
If so, then his apology for the parts he "missed"--the verbatim quotes that did not receive a "write-through"--are a smokescreen for a far worse issue: he was deliberately obscuring sources in order to avoid having to credit them. There's no question that this could have been done out of uncertainty of how to best make sure the sources were credited. He did extra work to duck the issue.
And what's worse, unlike the parts he "missed" in his "write-throughs", there will never be any way of knowing how often he did it and how much of the book consists of it. In terms of intellectual honesty, of creative integrity, of that "intellectual debt" he speaks so loftily of, the entire work stands now as the fruit of a poisonous tree[1].
[1] Thanks to
popelizbet for suggesting this phrase.
