Blogging and CNET paraphrasing
My last post on Web 2.0 Wrath seems to have been found by at least a few folks. Being the vain person that I am, I google my first and last name once every so often. On one of my recent searches, I found a result pointing to cnet.com. The article’s title is “When consumers become vigilantes” and was posted by Mike Yamamoto who is apparently a staff writer for CNET (read original post).
I was excited to see that someone recognized my post. This means that I am not just spouting off useless drivel for me to read on cold nights when I need to feel self-important.
I immediately looked at my AIM client to see who was online; I desperately needed to show someone that I’m apparently an authority on the subject of web vigilantism. I found my brother-in-law, John. John is a programmer and as such has an eye for minutiae. He noticed that my professor’s name is not mentioned on the cnet.com quote as it is in my original post. Also missing are any mention of digg and priceritephoto, the two entities that I was discussing in the post.
Now I am assuming that Mike Yamamoto has to change my post for some legal reason. But my quote is taken out of the exact context of the dispute. Not only does Bill Crosbie get zero props for being such an astute thinker, but this paraphrasing raises zero awareness about the entities in question and instead passes the buck onto a broader subject of ‘web vigilantism’.
This is all well and good: people should do their own research. My post is not the end-all be-all of web vigilantism. I’m no copyright lawyer, but shouldn’t Mike Yamamoto contact me if he is going to directly change my writing? Or should I just be greatful that I now get more click-throughs?