Newsvine - Good Enough to Plagiarize!

You know, half of me really agrees with you prompt, and I had a good long debate about this. But the other half of me does not agree. I think it carries an issue that up until now has not been really discussed. If asked by a Newsvine staff member, I will take down the post. In the heat of my annoyance, I may very well be wrong to post this, but part of me believes I should address the issue in public. I may very well reconsider later, or if asked by a staff member, I will comply with their wishes and concerns - but for now, it stays.

6 votes

#1.1 - Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:59 PM EDT

I agree with you, Corey. If you don't say something publicly it can be too easily swept under the rug. And in this particular case, I know the guy and he has evaded every private urging to stop his behavior this past 6 months. I've only brought him public myself after months of gentle suggestions to remove stolen content yielded only self-righteous and flippant replies like this one.

3 votes

#1.2 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:09 AM EDT

Metric

I disagree - it's important that such matters be held in the public light, especially considering Newsvine's open-source nature and community-based atmosphere. It's self-governing in a way and articles like these, just help to expose unjust practices, such as those committed by Dennis.

1 vote

#1.3 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:58 PM EDT

Corey SpringDeleted

Corey did bring this issue to our attention, but unfortunately since the content does not reside on our servers we cannot take it down. I have appealed to Mr. Bullock on his blog. Honestly, some people don't know that what they're doing is illegal, and others intentionally engage in plagiarism. I don't know which of these is the case here, but I think we'd all be better off to read Natalie's post on content ownership.

13 votes

#3 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:31 AM EDT

Excellent advice and I could not agree more with. Unfortunately, I have a hard time believing this is a mistake, based on Dennis' biographical information listed on his website, as well as the fact he has chosen to change several small, subtle details of mine, yet still attributing himself as the original author.

Regardless, I recommend that everyone who read this article also read Natalie's - it is incredibly plausible the same may happen to you, and her article is invaluable advice.

8 votes

#3.1 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:48 AM EDT

This is a big problem and as the pressure mounts on bloggers to produce content in order to earn money (coupled with the ability to rip whole pieces via RSS) it will get worse. The way to deal with it is through publicity. That is why this post is UTTERLY valid. I notice that the offending page has been taken down, so it proves that bringing this sort of thing to the attention of a wider audience actually works. Either that or the site ha sbeen overwhelmed with hits!

Just a quick note on "mistaken plagiarism". I have a blog. It is mostly cut , paste and comment and I have a newspage site which is entirely RSS driven. It is simpoly not possible to mistakenly bekieve that I have written any orf the pieces that I have extracted because I stick to well established rules of linking and attribution as do all decent bloggers. Indeed, only last night a bloger emailed me concerned that I might think he was copy-catting my post because it was so similar and ha dben published just minutes after mine. This was common courtesy. But, as in real life, don't expect it too often. Expose! Expose! Expose!

4 votes

#3.2 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:33 PM EDT

Excuse my ignorance, but how do you have a blog that is "mostly cut , paste and comment"? Isn't a blog your own web log, your own writing? And then you say, "not possible to mistakenly bekieve that I have written any orf the pieces that I have extracted" - do you mean that no one can expect that you write anything yourself? Forgive me if I'm way off base here, but isn't that strange, if not illegal? I know that SOME people allow their feeds to be fed into a blog in small bites, but a full post? And when quoting or citing, isn't it just a snippet to reinforce a point you're already making, not a complete excerpt? I've seen your 'blog' and see a lot of blockquoting going on with very little real content. That just seems slimy to me.

#3.3 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:29 PM EDT

Consider your ignorance excused.

do you mean that no one can expect that you write anything yourself?

No, and that is not what I said. Nobody could mistake an extract from another source which I have properly attributed and linked to, as well as differentiating it textually, for something I have written.

It might seem slimy ( do you really ned to be so offensive?) but as the man who invented the term 'weblog' doesn't post any original material on his blog (one of the very first to exist) it's good enough for me. You seem to think that a blog is only a place for people to scribble their thoughts, it is not. Just because teenagers have taken to writing their dreary irrelevant angst-filled witterings in blog form doesn't mean that that is all blogs can be. I suggest you spend more time surfing. And no it's not 'illegal' for your information.

I know that SOME people allow their feeds to be fed into a blog in small bites, but a full post?

Where exactly did I say anything about 'a full post'?

And when quoting or citing, isn't it just a snippet to reinforce a point you're already making, not a complete excerpt?

Er, in a word, no! I suspect you are still close to the 'college' model. Blogging isn't college.

There are people, I suspect you may be one of them, who see blogs as just a vehicle for their writing. Indeed it is an insanely easy way for anyone and everyone to get their 'thought' published. That may be why 99.9% of what appears on blogs is utter bilge. However it is a perfectly acceptable type of blog, even for 'writers' who can't come up with a better term than 'slimy'. It has to be said though, that it's a long way from the intentions of the original bloggers.

Thanks for visiting my 'blog' as you put it. I visited your website ( I'm not sure if you call it a blog - it isn't by the way) and I see that Jesus is central to your life. I wonder if he would have used the word 'slimy'? Mmmmm.

2 votes

#3.4 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:10 PM EDT

nah, there are more biblical terms he would have used. i'm sure your blogging method is just different than mine and that's fine. I just love reading unique things and cutting/pasting is just that... scraps.

#3.5 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:23 PM EDT

So you don't think you'll find anything 'unique' on my blog then? You regularly read through all the online news sources, book reviews, oped columns, etc do you? I doubt it. Content has to be unique to the reader not the blogger. That's why bloggers were almost called 'presurfers'. They found interesting stuff and posted extracts and links. That's what Newsvine seeds are. better tell Mr Tang he's got it wrong. They're just 'scraps'. If I wanted an easy life I could just sit down and churn out lazy 'what I had for breakfast' or 'my cute kid did this today' stuff. Almost as lazy as regurgitating 'web design' guff most of which has been adequately covered in detail by highly regarded, extremely experienced and insanely talented designers elsewhere on the web.

What I do is link to writing by people far more informed, intelligent, interesting and talented than I'll ever be in the knowledge that my readers will get something more worthwhile than simply listening to my twitterings, no matter how self-important I might think I am.That requires something Jesus would understand - humility. I chose that path, most end up having it imposed on them when they come face to face with their own limitations. Enjoy it all while you can....

Anyway, must dash, the Sunday papers will be out soon and there is cutting and pasting to be done. Now, where did I put my jar of slime?

3 votes

#3.6 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:48 PM EDT

Natalie, Mike - it's just a difference of opinion, and a practice that Natalie said she is admittedly unfamiliar with. No need for anyone to get tense, I think it's just a misunderstanding, that's all.

3 votes

#3.7 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:56 PM EDT

Corey Spring: I'm way too old and I've seen too many things to do 'tense'.

But I posted here in good faith and I mentioned, in support of the argument against 'inadvertant' or 'innocent' plagiarism, that I had what is commonly refered to as a pullquote and link blog, a perfectly acceptable form of blogging which would have been obvious to anyone with the most basic knowledge of blogging and its history.

For some reason I haven't quite fathomed, this prompted Ms Jost to comment, not on my remarks about the subject in hand, but on my blog or, to be more correct my 'blog' as she refered to it. Clearly not considering it worthy of the title blog because I had omitted to post about my bathroom, my baby or my bunions. Or my quest for the perfect 3 column design in CSS. She then called my blog 'slimey' on the basis of a quick visit. Reading my 1800+ posts would have taken a long time, I admit.

This, apparently, is a 'difference of opinion'. (Well, that's true! She thinks it's slimey and I don't!) But there was me thinking it was more to do with that fatal, but oh so common combination of ingnorance and arrogance so prevalent amongst young bloggers.

I can help with the ignorance part:

Here are some 'blogs' to take a peek at. Sorry, there is no mention of web standards, Javascript or layout in any of them. Just links, comment, pullquotes - well, you get the idea. I like to call them blogs but some people prefer 'blogs'. Make up your own mind.

First there is the grandfather of 'weblogs' himself, Jorn Barger

Next up is John Walkenbach of J-Walk 'Blog'fame

TBogg, popular and respected political 'blogger'

James Wolcott the famous Vanity Fair writer and another 'blogger'

Gary Farber of course, enough said.

Boing Boing, which keeps winning awards from people who mistakenly think it's a 'blog'

Lots of VERY clever people at this 'blog' -3 Quarks Daily

Weird Japanese 'blog'

One of the oldest link blogs around, Growabrain

One of the UKs most respected political bloggers Tim Ireland

I'll stop there. I've got hundreds more and not a web designer amongst them. Check them out. Consider it a primer in Blogs - Variety of: required reading for anybody who thinks blogging means having a livejournal where they can post their fears that their latest boyfriend is really only interested in their sister or some such tosh.

3 votes

#3.8 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:47 PM EDT

Let's put this line of discussion to rest please. Thanks everyone.

2 votes

#3.9 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:48 PM EDT

Mike Dojc

Corey,
I think you are definitely making the right move by exposing this guy to the community and props to Natalie for alerting you as well.

Five or six years ago I was reluctant to post articles on the web for the fear that my stuff would be ripped off. One positive to take from this experience was that you have enough fans here on Newsvine that content jackers won't get away with pulling a Spring article heist.

6 votes

#4 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:18 AM EDT

"Now with that being said I wouldn't have a problem designing a Myspace users page if they wanted me to."

I'm sorry, just have to laugh at that last line, only because I actually did try to design something for a MySpace user once and even I had a nightmare of a time with it. MySpace's layout setup is horrible to try to customize anything and totally not standards compliant, nesting tables all over the place. Something tells me he would have a problem designing something. I find it hilarious that he put that plug down there at the end, though it was heroic of him to attempt some sort of original writing. ;)

4 votes

#5 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:25 AM EDT

Enter Dennis Bullock to defend himself.

When reviewing the Newsvinw TOS I clearly read that it is allowable for you to subscribe to a category of feeds that can be fed into your site. Am I wrong? I removed the post since there obviously is a witch hunt going on here with Natalie Jost for some reason which I do not understand. I guess the services that I provided for her and her clients that she has not capable of were not acceptable and that is why she is on this mission. Not really sure.....

#6 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:39 AM EDT

Not capable of? Try busy designing, and the 'work' you provided was installing plugins for wordpress for a few weeks. You totally oversold yourself to me, saying you knew CSS and yet you have not designed a single site of your own but continue to use other pre-made templates (though now you've reverted to crediting the designers). I couldn't let my clients be at risk with your character so shaky - I thought I let you down easy. I am sorry it came to this dennis, but you can't play dumb anymore. You know what you did, and it's not close to being the first time you've stolen from other authors - be a man and admit it. Then, start writing your own stuff. I'm sure you'd be good if you spent some time researching things yourself.

8 votes

#6.1 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:47 AM EDT

oh, by the way, you must have missed this section of the Newsvine TOS...

"Newsvine grants you a limited license to make personal use of the Site to access and review the Materials for your information purposes only. This license does not include the right to: (a)use the Site or Materials for other than for its intended purpose, including but not limited to any marketing, selling, or other commercial uses; (b) use framing techniques to enclose any portion of the Site, including any images found on the Site or any text or the layout or design of any page or form contained on a page; (c)publish, publicly perform or display, or distribute to any third party any Materials, including reproduction or hosting the Materials on any computer network or broadcast or publications media; (d)make derivative uses of the Site or the Materials; or (e) any systematic collection or extraction of data through the use of any data mining, robots or similar data gathering or extraction methods."

Then there's the code of honor, and the Copyright Policy if you really want to be diligent.

16 votes

#6.2 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:52 AM EDT

Thanks for your comments Natalie and you are entitled to you version of the truth. I just find it interesting that I am not the only one that you took exception with for some reason and made it your personal mission to try to destroy their credibility after they brought you through a "busy" time in your career. That doesn't seem like a picture of honesty to me.

I would appreciate it if you would spend more time on your life, business and spiritual growth rather than putting so much time into concentrating on what I am doing.

Can we call this game you are playing over?......Thanks....

#6.3 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:33 PM EDT

Thank you for YOUR comments Dennis. I would appreciate it if you would never steal my content and represent it as your own again. Thanks...

15 votes

#6.4 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:58 PM EDT

Rodo

The article has been taken down, so I wasn't able to leave him a cordial comment... :(

Good of you to take it down Dennis, but you could have just given the real author the credit for writing it (or even linked to it). Problem solved!

You put your name on someone else's work because the Newsvine TOS didn't say you couldn't? How honorably frank of you to admit that. Oh where, oh where, has the common sense gone?

5 votes

#6.5 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:30 PM EDT

I don't know exactly what went on between Natalie and Dennis prior to this set of circumstances with the Corey Spring article, so I won't speak to that directly. But I will say that we at Newsvine do take content ownership very seriously, and taking content from users here without permission and/or attribution not only violates our User Agreement, but it breaks the spirit of what Newsvine stands for. We hold a user's content in the highest possible regard, which is why we go to the trouble of providing you all your your own columns, including unique URLs and domains attributing each of your contributions to you.

Dennis, you are right that we provide you RSS and JSS feeds, but the purpose of those feeds is to a) allow you a convenient way to keep up with authors or topics you enjoy, and b) to make it easier for you to spread the word that someone out there is writing good stuff. You have to actually go to a fair amount of trouble to strip out the information about the author, source, etc. to circumvent those intended uses.

I welcome you to put that effort instead toward developing your own skill as a writer and joining us in making mistakes and improving along the way. I'm no great writer, but I try my hand at original articles about scuba diving and traveling. The fun is in looking back at one's body of original work and realizing that it's something you breathed life into. After a while, you start to feel like your body of work is a sacred reflection of your personality and experiences. It's as unique and personal as it gets. When one sees that their own precious works have been utilized and credited to someone else, they typically feel extremely violated and offended. I hope this helps you understand where these folks are coming from, Dennis.

I have experienced it personally and it isn't a good feeling, but we can arrive at a common ground of understanding how to use content. Your recent post on your blog could've been just as interesting, if not more so, if you'd simply taken an excerpt of Corey's article and referenced the original article, then gone on to expand on his article with your own ideas and words. That is actually what Seeding is all about: nominating and giving credit to someone else for creating something worthwhile and directing others to that piece.

15 votes

#7 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:46 PM EDT

I appreciate these suggestions that you have pulled out Calvin and will put those into practice. I am sorry for the trouble that it has caused.

@Corey - you are an excellent writer and I value what you put out here. Do you have a problem i I quote your content as Calvin suggested.

#8 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:53 PM EDT

Corey SpringDeleted

There is no problem with quote and attributing source material, Dennis. I take extreme issue because you did not do that, and also altered my occasional sentence to make it appear even more as if you wrote it. When you post an admission on your site that you took my work and presented it as your own, then you can quote my writings (attributed to me).

I am particularly peeved about this because you are presenting it as if you made an innocent mistake, and I do in no way actually believe that.

10 votes

#8.2 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:06 PM EDT

I am sorry that you don't believe what I am saying Corey but it was not in an attempt to steal or hurt anyone.

I would ask if you wouldn't mind removing this post as I have fixed the issue and even though you don't believe me it was a misunderstanding by on how the information was to be used.

#8.3 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:02 PM EDT

These misunderstandings must be mighty frequent for you.

10 votes

#8.4 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:11 PM EDT

Alex Howell

I'm with you man.

3 votes

#9 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:05 PM EDT

This is definitely Calvin's territory, but for the record I am not as forgiving on this issue. Perhaps I would be if I thought there was some contrition on Dennis's part, but there's clearly not. There's a feeble attempt to claim ignorance, followed by an attack on an honest user, followed by some damage control when no support was found from the community.

Half of me wants to delete your account for TOS violations, Dennis, but the other half reminds me that the real reason I want to delete your account is that I just think you're a dishonest person... and if we start deleting accounts every time we feel people are dishonest, well, that's just a bit too draconian. Account deletion is a last resort and it is the Newsvine community that should control this place and not us. So I'll just say this: shape up or ship out. Making a name for yourself as a plagiarizer who doesn't respect the intellectual property of others is a road to ruin.

19 votes

#10 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:12 PM EDT

Chandra W.

Corey, I've been following this thread ever since the title first showed up on the main page last night, although the post itself was removed. Thanks for putting the content back up, which allowed me to read both Natalie's comments in her blog, as well as Dennis' original "lift" of your Newsvine article.

I'm confused about that link to genuineblog.com in your last comment, however. Is that site claiming that Dennis "lifted" the My First Time post, too? If so, you're right, the innocence is painfully hard to see.

2 votes

#11 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:22 PM EDT

Unfortunately, yes, the link I provided is the original author of the latest Dennis post, who wrote it in June 2004. Upon rechecking it, there is now a link that says originally reprinted from....' that was not there before. As you can imagine, the other author is a little irked about having his content lifted, and rightfully so.

6 votes

#11.1 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:25 PM EDT

I am not sure what I am doing wrong here. I the post you guys are now trying to hang me on I thought was funny. I included the link where I found it. So how was this wrong? I guess I am missing my copy of the rule book.

#12 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:04 PM EDT

Dennis: Anything you write is automatically property of you. Anything someone else writes is automatically property of them. It is illegal to republish text (except in excerpted form, under fair-use guidelines) that you do not own the rights to. It does not matter if you "give credit" at the end or not. Additionally, in the case of Corey's article, you published the text as if it were your own and then added your own sentence at the end to make it appear *more* your own. That's even worse than plagiarism. This is not complicated stuff we're talking about here. It is common sense that one cannot take the articles of others and republish them without permission.

12 votes

#12.1 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:30 PM EDT

I thought that was the point of the credit link. I removed both posts from my site but that doesn't fix the problem that Corey's post is now out here spreading the work that I am some sort of criminal when it was an honest mistake that I did now that a link back to give the person credit took care of showing where the text originated. So now because of mistake that I made, a misunderstanding of how a credit back worked my credibility is damaged and could result in my lose of business or possibly my attempt at making a career as a web designer.

Is that really fair?

#12.2 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:37 PM EDT

As with everything in life, you are responsible for your actions and whatever good or bad may come of them. You made a decision to take the content of others without permission and you were caught. The person whose content you took decided to write about it, and it's his choice how he wants to deal with it from here. He is right and you are wrong, so whatever comes next is entirely his decision. If he believes this was indeed an "honest mistake", he could certainly take this post down, but I don't believe he does... and I don't either, given that you have already be warned in the past for taking the content of others and posting it to your site without permission. The excuse that you "thought that was what credit links were for" doesn't wash either because you didn't even have the credit links in there until you were called out.

So to answer your question, yes, I believe it is entirely fair for this sort of information to be public.

14 votes

#12.3 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:53 PM EDT

Thanks for your response Mike

#12.4 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:53 PM EDT

Snookie

Dennis, all you gotta do is just say where you got the text in the begining or the end or whatever with a link if possible. The point is to make the reader KNOW that the parts that aren't yours weren't written by you.

Goodluck next time bro :)

#13 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:42 PM EDT

But that is exactly what I did.......I dont understand???

#14 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:43 PM EDT

Dennis, I might be the last person you'd listen to, but if you only follow one rule, let it be this: DO NOT REPUBLISH ANYTHING THAT YOU DID NOT WRITE OR DESIGN YOURSELF. And Mike makes a great point: "Anything you write is automatically property of you" - By publishing someone else' work you are by default taking ownership of it. People will assume you own the work.

3 votes

#15 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:48 PM EDT

DO NOT REPUBLISH ANYTHING THAT YOU DID NOT WRITE OR DESIGN YOURSELF. And Mike makes a great point: "Anything you write is automatically property of you" - By publishing someone else' work you are by default taking ownership of it.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense! This can be clearly demonstrated by looking at the quote above!. Do I now 'own' it? Is there any confusion as to whether I wrote it? If we all followed this rule most blogs and sites like this would cease to exist overnight. It is the INTENTION which is the key here. Are you simply filling up a site with content from elswhere for no good reason, thereby risking the belief in your readers that you are responsible for the content or are you extracting and linking to worthwhile material from other sites thereby enhancing and widening the reader's experience, which is the essential element of what the first bloggers (or 'pre-surfers') were doing?

Nobody complains if Instapundit quotes and links to their material do they?

The point about the web is that everything is checkable. If Bullocks piece were still online we could go see for ourselves and make up our own minds, in seconds. There is no hiding place. We don't need to get all prissy about 'our' content. To be theft it is necessary to deny the owner 'something' even if it is not the content itself. In this case it is the rightful credit for the material that belongs to the author and an opportunity to easily access it (prominent attribution and a link).

Posting material from subscribed sites is another matter. If 'premium' material hasn't been paid for in some way and has not been made available free by the publisher and there is no compelling public interest involved in re-publishing then it could well be thought of as theft. However, if there is attribution it CANNOT be called plagiarism, that much is obvious.

1 vote

#15.1 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:59 PM EDT

mike: I think you took that a little too literally. Natalie meant "don't republish pieces in their entirety than you didn't write". Obviously, quoting and excerpting fall under fair use.

2 votes

#15.2 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:02 PM EDT

Thanks for that. Yes I agree, there is very little justification for republishing entire posts and this goes to the heart of 'intention'. There have been times when prominent bloggers have published entire posts because the issues at stake were so important that a wider audience for the piece was justified. I can't think that anyone would object to that. Mr Bullock is a very long way from being in such ab exhalted position! When he's pulling in 100,000 readers a day I will GIVE him my content to post (with a link ;-)

#15.3 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:13 PM EDT

LOL, silly, that IS what I meant... don't republish more than an APPROPRIATE citation (don't blockquote an entire post). I guess you can't count on common sense anymore, huh? :)

#15.4 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:32 PM EDT

Guess not

#15.5 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:53 PM EDT

I will definitely take that information Natalie. I am almost afraid to link to anything from my site. BTW, I dont have a problem with you at all. I think that I was the one attacked because of the misunderstanding that putting a link back to the originator gave them credit. My stupidity I guess.

Friends?

#16 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:54 PM EDT

i sent you an email because this is a discussion we ought to be having privately i think.

1 vote

#16.1 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:58 PM EDT

Dennis,
I believe in not thinking the worst about someone in any situation right off the bat, as different people have different perceptions of the same situation.

That said, let us establish a few Basic Truths here, okay?
1. If you quote someone, you somehow acknowledge that you are quoting them, be it by footnotes, or clear and honest attribution of your souce, e.g. "Corey Spring, on Newsvine.com wrote on April 12th, 2006, 'Blah blah blah.' "
2. If you truly want to be precise, you can do a simple web search on "source citing," to find numerous articles on the proper way to credit works that YOU DID NOT WRITE, such as

Plagarism is the most serious crime ANY writer can commit, or be accused of.
Instead of posturing and defending yourself, step back and understand the POV of the "general viewing public," acknowledge your transgression, however unintended it was, go forth, and sin no more.

Henceforth, READ and FOLLOW proper source citing rules, ( ), thereby avoiding ANY appearance of dishonesty, plagarism, or general loutishness, and incurring the wrath of the internet in general, or the possibility of potential copyright infringement lawsuits, which you do not want to invest either the time, nor the money, to defend yourself against, do you understand?

You may not have ever intended to step on toes in the manner that you have, but, nevertheless, you have committed, what in some circles, can legally be considered a crime...

2 votes

#17 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:06 PM EDT

Donald Turnbull

I think that Dennis has learned his lesson. Can we move on now? I think this issue could have been resolved without publicly embarrassing anyone.

1 vote

#18 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:06 PM EDT

I agree with you on the moving on... already there. However, on the issue of public embarrassment, in this particular case it has been established that no other tactic has worked. This issue is not isolated to this one event. In this case it was not resolved for months until this embarrassment. I, more than anyone (save Dennis), am sorry it went this far, but it's better to be embarrassed than sued for copyright infringement. That said, I do agree that Dennis is on the right track and probably won't do anything like this again, at least not without a fair share of hawkeyes watching, so let's drop it.

3 votes

#18.1 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:13 PM EDT

This guy embarrassed himself!

3 votes

#18.2 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:01 PM EDT

The link for online source citing was somehow deleted by filters, hopefully this one will print online:

#19 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:07 PM EDT

Okay, retype as needed:

bedfordstmartinsDOTcom/online/citexDOThtml

#20 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:08 PM EDT

Donald Turnbull,
You are mistaken in your assumptions that 1) This issue could have been resolved without "public embarassment," because you do not know either the full intentions of either party, nor the efforts that may have been previously undertaken to resolve the situation, and
2) That publicly calling attention to online plagarism, however intentional, is uncalled for. It is ONLY through the public "outing" of plagarisers, that such actions are taught to the uninformed that such behaviour is inappropriate, and to the uncaring that such actions ARE observed and called to the public's attention.

Yes, it might be best to now move on, but it would behoove Mr. Bullock to at least make some sign of repentance for what is, at its core, STEALING of the works of another.

2 votes

#21 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:13 PM EDT

I have posted an apology on my site. Again I am sorry for all of this misunderstanding and have learned a valuable blogging lesson.

#22 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:19 PM EDT

prompt

I cannot say if you honestly made a mistake or not, but this is what I was getting at with my initial comment. My position was that if Corey went directly to you, then the problem could be sorted without a public hanging for you. Unfortunately, we will never know if you would have redeemed your mistakes without being publically reticuled for them.

1 vote

#22.1 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:53 PM EDT

The guy has apologised and while we should remain vigilant I think he should be given a chance to redeem himself. I will not kick a man when he's down, BUT if he gets up and starts the same old mallarkey, well...... get those boots on!

2 votes

#22.2 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:05 PM EDT

mike power and prompt, I think the point is that this sort of thing has happened in the past regarding Mr. Bullock and other people's content. I too believe in giving people second chances and the fact that he has issued a public apology is a fine step in the right direction. I've been watching this discussion, hoping that Dennis would come to the conclusion of issuing an apology on his blog without my having to ask him to do so.

I do want to point out though, Dennis, that I didn't see a link to the original article by Corey Spring on your blog when I first visited the infringing piece. I happen to have some screenshots, but I don't think we need to go down that road. I suggest editing the apology to make that point crystal clear. If you do this and refrain from any further shirking of responsibility, then I will lay this to rest and consider you back in good standing with Newsvine. Heck, maybe Corey will even take this article down if he sees that you're sparing no effort to come clean and own up to your actions.

I'm not trying to kick you while you're down, in fact, I've tried to be as understanding as possible about this dispute. Early-on, I tried to quell some of the anger towards you, at least until you had a chance to share your side of the story. Even then, I attempted to appeal to you, to try to understand where these folks are coming from. I'm much more satisfied at the end of the day if I can help someone improve and turn themselves around, rather than cutting them loose. I'm sorry that I have to push for more, regarding the changes to your existing apology, but asking for anything less would be shortchanging Corey, and that I simply cannot do.

3 votes

#22.3 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:01 PM EDT

Calvin - please have a look at my site. I adjusted my apology and hope that this puts this to bed. Al I can say is I am sorry and like I said on my site I have learned from you all. I hope what you said about Corey removing this post is what happens. We will see.

#22.4 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:14 PM EDT

The Newsvine algorithm will automatically take care of the situation by removing this off any front pages at 11.41pm - 24 hours after it was originally posted.

If you learned something, that's super and better than the alternative. I find it very unfortunate you had to be poked and prodded several times to come to this conclusion, though.

The article will remain until the system automatically delists it for no longer being 'fresh.' Let it serve as a reminder and lesson to you (and others) to NEVER, EVER, do something like this again.

2 votes

#22.5 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:23 PM EDT

I took a look at your site Dennis. I for one am satisfied and am also very happy to put this thing behind us. This is my least favorite part of my duties here at Newsvine, but also among the most important. Thank you for coming around and doing the right thing. It's Corey's prerogative as to when or if he wants to take this article down, but I imagine we'll all cool off and have some more perspective in a little while. Now everyone go on your merry way and find something else to discuss, I think we've all had enough of this for one day.

#22.6 - Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:34 PM EDT