Interesting story

[JAYDEEJOHN]

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/07/27/plagiarism-rampant-it-journalism/

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Notice hes no longer at THG? This does make sense. All these people are dealing with snippets of info, some leaked to catch the leakers, some leaks change mid flight, and theres always human error.
I give Charlie some credit, especially after bump gate. The Inqs always been the Inq, but Theo?

 

[mactronix]

Problem as i see it is stop all the cloak and dagger bullshit. If you have a source that is giving you what is meant to be exclusive info and it appears on the net a day later on another site then unless its word for word then its spreading the knowledge as far as I'm concerned. You still got your exclusive and discerning people will recognise this.
The net is a recognised resource for research these days and once your story hits the public domain the info within it is as far as I'm concerned is fair game.
I can understand if someone is claiming they found out XYZ or that they have an exclusive when you know damn well they don't and as far as you are concerned you are the only person who should know this info. But then you shouldn't really have found out yet anyway, should you. Stick to official press releases and then everybody knows who was and was not there and so you can prove the plagiarism.
At the very least you would hope common decency would dictate that sources are credited but then if your intention is not to claim any credit yourself and you are just reporting facts then that's just what you did.

Mactronix

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Just look. Theres three of them, Charlie,Theo and FUaD. Theyre essentually competing for any inside info that some of us crave, and more would, if it werent for things like this.
Read the story, Theo purportedly reproduced a fallacy by plagerism. If in fact hed actually done his own work, hed have known what was what, and wouldnt have repeated the gals mistake made at the Inq, and everyone does this, here, at the Inq and at the Wall Street Journal, retractions happen, but this smacks of FUD, real FUD

 

[mactronix]

Whilst it doesn't surprise me, it is not to say that it is completely and utterly wrong.

Communicating anything as your own when it is not is low, nothing is fair game, the ethical laws about reporting information has not changed just because the internet has come along.

Some idiots blog would be bad enough, but a supposed professional?

Yes i agree and did say as much but it all depends on context to me, as i said gathering info and reporting it includes the net these days and as i also said you would think that credits should be given where due.

However the article came across to me as whiny towards the end. Hell if i had to credit everyones stuff i read while giving advice on these forums all posts would be pages long. But then im not claiming credit for it. Which would certainly make a differance.

Mactronix

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

But your rules when you post are different. What you post is based on experience, usage, plus a following trend/direction, and repeat what you "know" to be sound.
These guys live in a anythings possible world, and what we repeat has to be close enough to the truth, or I dont eat.
When someone steals that from you, if it was me, I wouldnt be whining, Id be screaming

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Not sure if everyones read this one also
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/07/27/when-caught-dont-destroy-evidence/

 

[3Ball]

Very interesting read indeed. Im not going to say that I was surprised by the story, but the manner in which everything took place just annoys me.

I will never understand how people can just take credit from other peoples work and be ok with it, none the less, what seemed to be a personal friend. Nice find btw.

Best,

3Ball