Musings & Meanderings

After my post on Wednesday stating that I though CNet should apologize to Wired, several people asked me,

“Why do you care?”.

My initial response to this was simply, “Why don’t you?”, but, after some reflection, I decided that the question deserves a more detailed response. The following is hardly a complete response. The reasons for caring about attribution could easily lead to development of long tracts on morality, philosophy, social responsibility, and more, so here, first, are a few of my personal beliefs on why I care in general.

I care about the world I live in, and believe that every one of my actions combine with everyone else’s to make it either a better or worse place to live.

I know that it is possible to be successful in life and in business while behaving in a moral and ethical manner.

Speaking up for a popular cause is always easy, speaking up for what you believe in sometimes isn’t.

Personal popularity isn’t success, and it also isn’t a measure of trust or loyalty.

Being loyal to yourself and the things you believe in is worth it, even when it is difficult or costly.

Now as to why I care about attribution specifically:

Attribution is something that concerns anyone who has ever published, or thought to publish, anything. Ever more of us derive our livelihood from ‘right-brain’ activities. For reporters and journalists specifically, attribution or the lack thereof is an asset that translates into both reputation and earning power. Despite the major shifts taking place on the publishing landscape, in terms of copyright, ease and accessibility, etc., the basic societal structures of how we organize ourselves around ideas and information haven’t changed substantially.

The FBI spyware story belongs to all of us, and it’s a good thing that there are plenty of postings and conversations about it. It relates to many issues which we should understand better and be more aware of in general, including privacy, security, and law enforcement on the internet.

My post on Wednesday was a statement of my opinion on something I observed that bothered me. It is my way to act, whenever possible, when I see something that appears unjust. In most cases, that action involves private and personal communication. In others, where many lives are affected, there are organizations that I can add my support to, in the form of making a donation of time, influence, or money. (In this case, the actors were speaking in public.)

In the case of the Wired/CNet story, I subscribe to both of their feeds, and do not know either of the specific reporters personally. I initially emailed both of them. Declan McCullagh did not respond. Kevin Poulsen did. After a few more conversations about it, I decided to post my personal opinion here. Even though it wasn’t likely to change anything all those hours later, it is still a statement for the record.

If the CNet story lacked an appropriate attribution to Wired (as I believe), that could have, and still can, be changed at any time. This is a tremendous power to change that we have here. Like any power, it can be used well and it can also be abused.

We’ve seen, since the rise of powerful blogger journalists and the awkwardly growing area called citizen journalism, more than a few stories broken where ’scoops’ were publicly credited to individuals, adding to their reputation and clout. The majority of these individuals is deserving of their reputations, worked hard to build them, and did not do so primarily at the expense of others.

Plagiarism is anathema to any ethical publisher, of news or anything else. This is not, at heart, an issue of monetary value or rights, but rather an issue of ethical behavior and mutual respect, essential components to peaceful human co-existence. The growth of open platforms such as blogging, combined with the growing population online and the lightning speed of the medium, are enabling the dissemination of all published writing at unprecedented speed. Those of us who value the freedom of this medium, in my opinion, should also contribute whatever we can to education and to raising the standards of behavior whenever possible.

The basic definition of plagiarism, though, does not take into account the new concept of people chatting about, commenting on, and passing on ‘news’ in a published form. Telling your friends about something you heard/read isn’t a professional activity, and there is a lot of gray area here that would benefit from more discussion and consideration.

Most people publishing online include a copyright statement, and the most common (based on my own observations only) is one which states that all are free to re-publish, usually in original form, with attribution to the author. In the less formal publishing taking place in social mediums, it is becoming common practice to pass the word around without using or referencing the original form, but still thanking or giving a ‘hat tip’ to the writer’s source. Even non-professional publishers adhere to these basic behavioral codes of civility and respect.

—–
These are some of the reasons I care. What are some of yours?

This entry was posted on Friday, July 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm and is filed under Plagiarism, Personal, Freedom, Ethics, Entrepreneurship. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.