[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: W3C suckered by Microsoft?

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: W3C suckered by Microsoft?
• From: Jim Ancona <jim@a...>
• Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:23:37 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F463@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F463@h...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> From: Greg Colyer [mailto:greg-xml@e...]
> 
>>Well, crediting your sources is all very good and honourable, but 
>>omitting to do so is hardly new. 
> 
> Doesn't make it right.  Do that in a modern journal or even a 
> newspaper and one can send a career right down the tubes.  Do 
> it in a blog and given the environment, one can be credited 
> instantly by some large number of other bloggers and it hardens 
> like an 80/20 standard.  

I think this blog attribution thing is overblown. The Wired article says 
[1]:

"Indeed, the team at HP Labs found that when an idea infected at least 
10 blogs, 70 percent of the blogs did not provide links back to another 
blog that had previously mentioned the idea."

Besides plagiarism, another possible explanation is simply that once a 
blogger see an idea in several different places, he assumes it's common 
knowledge.

And show me a newspaper or TV station that consistently attributes 
sources for story ideas.

For a laugh, see the study authors' take on the press coverage, called 
"Why do bloggers kill kittens?"[2]

Jim

[1] - http://wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,62537,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
[2] - http://www-idl.hpl.hp.com/blogstuff/faq.html#10

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: W3C suckered by Microsoft?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: W3C suckered by Microsoft?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• References:
  • RE: W3C suckered by Microsoft?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Document is invalid: no grammar found.
• Next by Date: RE: W3C suckered by Microsoft?
• Previous by thread: RE: W3C suckered by Microsoft?
• Next by thread: Re: W3C suckered by Microsoft?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread