Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Why doesnt Ars Technica credit us as source?

  1. #11
    Bryant is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arsedit View Post
    Iím the Editor-in-Chief at Ars Technica.

    In the first example listed above, Emil cited the sites from which he learned of the various aspects of the story, and the last one was indeed a reader. I have seen the communication. The video was posted to YouTube five days ago, two days before Manan posted a different version of the same video on his site. The YouTube version has been viewed by more than 10,000 people. Manan can hardly be considered the source of the video given that it was available before he posted it. That said, if we had learned of it from him, we would have given him a hat tip.



    Our policy is, plain and simple, to cite our sources when we learn of something novel from those sources. By "something novel" I mean something that we would not have known otherwise. In cases where it is 100% obvious who broke a real story first, we will cite them. However, it is not always obvious, and so we cite whomever posted the content we saw first. We also routinely credit readers when they send something in, if it's not attached to some other site. Unless I am missing something, Manan is not the source of this story, and the tremendous number of viewers of the video on YouTube suggests to me that it is not at all unreasonable that the reader who tipped us to this video found it on YouTube.

    The ParisLemon story listed above is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of many of the people who constantly attack us for citation purposes. In that example, the author assumed merely because we used the same concept in a headline as he did that we necessarily ripped him off. The irony, as you can see from the last update, is that another site had already used the same concept long before he used it. Point being, one could easily argue that he had ripped it off from someone else. He was holding us to a standard that he himself neither follows nor can uphold.

    In the second example, it was claimed that we did not cite a source, when we plainly did but the link was stripped out. The source was however mentioned by name. It was simply incredibly sloppy formatting on our part, but the "reporting" by Riley was equally poor because he missed an obvious source call out right in the text. I should note that this was proven to him because it was in the Google cache.

    The Microsoft codec story was definitely known in-house, and was written many hours before it was published. It was not dependent on Manan.

    The fact of the matter is, although we have certainly made mistakes in the past, we do not abuse our sources and have not engaged in the practices of which we are accused.
    Those who claim that we do not cite our sources in order to "look big" are clearly unfamiliar with the site. Anyone who actually reads this site knows that day in, day out, we are linking off-site hundreds of times a week.

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------

    As a quick follow-up, since I suspect someone will suggest that there was no reader-source and that we are just liars, riddle me this. Why would we credit two other sites in that post only to not credit a third site? It makes no sense. There is no conceivable advantage to purposely not cite in that context.

    Also, just because a post may have a link added to it after publication doesn't mean we're citing them as our source. We've done this to placate, but it is not an admission of a mistake doing unless it explicitly says so.

    The veracity of this claim can be confirmed. As such, I recant the statement calling this a "blatant" act of theft as this wasn't the case.

    Cheers, guys, but please, stop getting yourselves so gummed up. I typically just don't post something that has already been beaten to a pulp.

  2. #12
    iMav's Avatar
    iMav is offline Gold Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arsedit View Post
    I’m the Editor-in-Chief at Ars Technica.

    In the first example listed above, Emil cited the sites from which he learned of the various aspects of the story, and the last one was indeed a reader. I have seen the communication. The video was posted to YouTube five days ago, two days before Manan posted a different version of the same video on his site. The YouTube version has been viewed by more than 10,000 people. Manan can hardly be considered the source of the video given that it was available before he posted it. That said, if we had learned of it from him, we would have given him a hat tip.

    Our policy is, plain and simple, to cite our sources when we learn of something novel from those sources. By "something novel" I mean something that we would not have known otherwise. In cases where it is 100% obvious who broke a real story first, we will cite them. However, it is not always obvious, and so we cite whomever posted the content we saw first. We also routinely credit readers when they send something in, if it's not attached to some other site. Unless I am missing something, Manan is not the source of this story, and the tremendous number of viewers of the video on YouTube suggests to me that it is not at all unreasonable that the reader who tipped us to this video found it on YouTube.

    The ParisLemon story listed above is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of many of the people who constantly attack us for citation purposes. In that example, the author assumed merely because we used the same concept in a headline as he did that we necessarily ripped him off. The irony, as you can see from the last update, is that another site had already used the same concept long before he used it. Point being, one could easily argue that he had ripped it off from someone else. He was holding us to a standard that he himself neither follows nor can uphold.

    In the second example, it was claimed that we did not cite a source, when we plainly did but the link was stripped out. The source was however mentioned by name. It was simply incredibly sloppy formatting on our part, but the "reporting" by Riley was equally poor because he missed an obvious source call out right in the text. I should note that this was proven to him because it was in the Google cache.

    The Microsoft codec story was definitely known in-house, and was written many hours before it was published. It was not dependent on Manan.

    The fact of the matter is, although we have certainly made mistakes in the past, we do not abuse our sources and have not engaged in the practices of which we are accused.
    Those who claim that we do not cite our sources in order to "look big" are clearly unfamiliar with the site. Anyone who actually reads this site knows that day in, day out, we are linking off-site hundreds of times a week.

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------

    As a quick follow-up, since I suspect someone will suggest that there was no reader-source and that we are just liars, riddle me this. Why would we credit two other sites in that post only to not credit a third site? It makes no sense. There is no conceivable advantage to purposely not cite in that context.

    Also, just because a post may have a link added to it after publication doesn't mean we're citing them as our source. We've done this to placate, but it is not an admission of a mistake doing unless it explicitly says so.
    Hi arsedit,

    Appreciate you dropping by but you see your points are kinda not valid. I knew you would bring up the video view count and checked those when your article came in my RSS.

    The Youtube video had less views than the Blip video, it was only after you posted about it that the video has the number of views that it has.

    Coming back to the post, the dates, yes true. How convenient it is that Ars Technica always has their stuff written before or has an alternate source though their articles come after half the world has written about it!

    Codex was an example, this is too. Now coming back to facts again. What ticked me the most was the smugness of your author when he states that:

    The last stunt we're going to tell you about is one that we haven't yet seen posted much, but we feel it deserves some recognition nonetheless.
    Sure hasn't he heard about Softpedia or Seattle Times?

    And then he goes on to say that there were 7000 dominoes and it was done by 22 employees (how did he know?) - figures only on sites that have linked back to me or this site and on Ankur's facebook profile.

    While you accept that Ankur was the source and he shot it, there is no link back to even his profile (which I can bet you didn't even know had this video)! Now I wonder whether you got these figures from Ankur's profile which you would've linked back to according to your own policy or you got this information from websites which have linked back to us, in which case your entire claim is incorrect.

    Thank you.
    Last edited by iMav; 29th October 2009 at 10:28.

  3. #13
    HappyAndyK's Avatar
    HappyAndyK is offline Site Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,540

    Default

    OK, I guess its time to forgive and forget and move on.

    Thread closed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22