Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Why doesnt Ars Technica credit us as source?

  1. #1
    HappyAndyK's Avatar
    HappyAndyK is offline Site Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,538

    Unhappy Why doesnt Ars Technica credit us as source?

    Ars Technica! A name I respect; always have, always will!

    But what saddened me recently was when Ars carried an article and a video about the unusual way Windows 7 was unveiled using dominoes by Microsoft India in Hyderabad!

    This post was first make by my MVP collegue Manan.

    Since I wanted to embed the script on my site and and as his embeded video did not have an option to get the code, I requested him to send me the code; which he did and which I have posted & acknowledged.

    The said Microsoft India employee has protected his updates and hence only his Facebook friends could see the video. Manan got it, embeded it in his blog and shared the script with me too. You cannot get the embedding script from Manans blog but only from my blog. I had searched on the internet and was sure that we were the only ones.

    No one else could have access to it. Not Tom, Dick or Martin !!!

    Now I see this video on Ars Technica here. But with neither a hat tip to WindowsClub or Manan!

    Seattle Times credited us : Brier Dudley's blog | Windows 7 made with 7,000 dominos, by Microsoft India team | Seattle Times Newspaper

    Softpedia too did it : Windows 7 Logo Built with 7,000 Domino Pieces - Video available - Softpedia

    Ithinkdiff credited it too : Microsoft’s Hyderabad campus in India launched Windows 7 in style | ithinkdifferent



    There are others ...

    Then why grudge us a few hits, Ars Technica ?

    Please Ars Technica, set us an example, we want to look up to and to continue to look up to you !

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

    Default

    Well, this isn't the first time this happened with me. Earlier, when I had done an article showing a video of Microsoft's Codex tablet PC which seems to be a prototype of the Courier. I did that article here:

    Microsoft's Tablet PC Prototype In Action! [Images & Video] | I'm Just Being Manan

    The article became quite popular, so much so that Neowin, Mary Jo Foley, WMPowerUser, Locker Gnome and a lot of other sites/blogs linked back to me.

    Then my RSS showed Emil's article on Ars Technica, where he credited himself... which was surprising to say the least, since his article came after everyone else had blogged about it and still he had the audacity to credit himself. Here is the article

    Microsoft Courier tablet prototype reminds us of Codex - Ars Technica

    A couple of days later someone on twitter... someone respected in the field of Microsoft reporting raised a storm by linking each article that Emil had not credited the original authors. After that I was surprised to see that Emil had edited his article and linked back to me later and all this while the people who handle their twitter account denied any sort of such activities that article.

    Today, again it was surprising to see that Emil repeated the whole thing. It is frustrating to see that an author of a website of Ars Technica's repute stooping so low.

    Are they so scared that a small time enthusiastic blogger like me or a reputed website like Windows Club will steal all their readers?

    As I said there was a storm raised on twitter there have been numerous instances where Ars Technica hasn't respected the original authors, some are mentioned by Andy in the post above.

    In the field of Microsoft itself there have been posts by Long Zheng & Stephen Chapman where Emil hasn't credited them only to edit his post later when pulled up for it.
    Last edited by iMav; 28th October 2009 at 15:15.

  3. #3
    Pankaj's Avatar
    Pankaj is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Pune
    Posts
    175

  4. #4
    alsiladka's Avatar
    alsiladka is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Don't know what they are trying to achieve here. If they think not crediting the others & "creating" stories by themselves will make them a biggie.. They are sooo wrong.
    I certainly lost my respect for them.
    It takes just 2 words to credit a site! How hard can it be.

  5. #5
    Pankaj's Avatar
    Pankaj is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Pune
    Posts
    175

  6. #6
    seti is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,923

    Default

    This is really bad. If you use something then give credit to the originator everytimeIn truth I am very cross about this

  7. #7
    Doug_72's Avatar
    Doug_72 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Provo
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Pathetic !

    But I'm sure that they will say that they saw it elsewhere, but since you are from India and it was an Indian event, one is inclined to believe you; and more so when prestigious sites like Seattle Times & Softpedia too have quoted you!

    Edit: btw they haven't mentioned Martins or Ankur's link too.

    I've seen small bloggers rip stuff and then thank Tom, Dick, Harry (without links) for the tip, but this is really sad, I must say!
    Last edited by Doug_72; 28th October 2009 at 17:03.

  8. #8
    riteshtechie's Avatar
    riteshtechie is offline Software Developer
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    880

  9. #9
    Bryant is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default

    They've done it to me as well, as well as with a few other major names. It's nothing new, and it will probably never end, but I don't think I've seen it this blatant.

    -Bryant Zadegan
    AeroXperience/winJade

  10. #10
    arsedit is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by arsedit; 29th October 2009 at 00:12.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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