Annals of the Blogosphere: Is This Pathetic or What?
Filed under:
Back in April, a blog called Retrospectacle published a post about antioxidants in food which included a chart taken from a book published by John Wiley & Sons, with full attribution to the source. No sooner had the blogger done so than she was contacted by Wiley's lawyers, who demanded that "their" content be removed.
Last week, Wikipedia announced that Wiley had stolen Wiki's content for one of Wiley's books, making no attribution whatsoever. Yet, while admitting (after being forced to do so) that "a specific passage from Wikipedia was inadvertently added by our author without attribution" all the publisher has agreed to do is correct future reprints.
"Inadvertently"? The author just happened to lift two whole pages out of Wikipedia and "forgot" to mention he got it from there? And the various MSM critiques of Wiki, and the blogosphere generally, as being less-than-credible had nothing to do with it?
MSM is clearly becoming deranged by the power of the blogosphere. Instead of viewing Retrospectacle's action as free advertising, as it should, and instead of realizing the downside ot outraging the powerful blogosphere, MSM once again reacts in the pathetic, arrogant, knee-jerk manner that is causing to lose its place on the information superhighway.
Thoughtful people should boycott Wiley's products until they come to their senses, as message to MSM that it must stop harassing the blogosphere and just let us do our job.
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
reddit