I'm totally with you. They've always been a kind of lame outfit - this is just more of same. Not to mention they can't even spell Arts Technical correctly - and it's their OWN NAME!! duh.

There's no excuse for ripping other people's work... even if you do it through negligence or lack of research. The only possible solution when you have done such a thing is to hold your hands up, say, 'my bad', and link to the source of the article.

You have got to be kidding me. The pun is obvious. ParisLemon still excelling at nonsense journalism.

@anon - maybe but it's the fact that it was used ON TOP of ars not linking to any other source on their story despite being a day late to the story. it's just odd that they used the top stories' headline and their story read like a summation of that piece. oh yeah and it was the NYT, not like some tiny blog.

Also see conversations here and here

Sorry, but since when is it expected that you give credit for other publications republishing press release material before you get around to it? You have a very strange notion of journalistic standards wrt. citing sources, and this is a particularly weak example: the NYT didn't come to this by way of their own in-depth investigation, either -- IT WAS A PRESS RELEASE.

OH come on. Here I'm thinking they ripped off whole sections of your work or something but this is all about a pun?

MG,


The pun theme was extremely common. Here are a few examples:



Scrabble knock-off spells trouble for Facebook

Edmonton Sun, Canada - Jul 25, 2008



Scrabble-Scrabulous standoff spells LAWSUIT

ZDNet - Jul 25, 2008



Hasbro takes Facebook game Scrabulous to COURT

AFP - Jul 24, 2008



Hasbro Notches Triple-Word Score Against Scrabulous With ‘Lawsuit’

New York Times, United States - Jul 24, 2008



Hasbro Lawsuit Spells Trouble for Scrabulous

findingDulcinea, New York - Jul 25, 2008



Hasbro spells it out by suing Scrabulous

NEWS.com.au, Australia - Jul 24, 2008



You can find more such headlines at this link:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1229611689



It's silly in the extreme to take us to task for using a headline with a Scrabble pun, especially given how common it was. I don't even think you can claim that the pun is part of the problem, or adduce it as any sort of evidence of copying, given the prevalence of exactly this sort of pun in so many of the stories. Like your previous set of allegations, you've managed to find an instance (out of the hundreds of stories we run each month) where an Ars writer had the same clever idea as two or three other writers.



As far as sources and linking goes, I'd love to have your input on this: what rules do you specifically suggest that we use for linking, in an instance where our RSS reader already has a few hundred individual pieces of coverage on a topic that we eventually decide to cover?



Are we supposed to link the first story that we happen to click on? The second or third story? Or maybe the writer is supposed to follow the link trail all the way back to the outlet that got the story first, and only link that outlet? Or maybe we should just link the story that we like the best out of all the ones who got there before us? Or should we link that five or six stories that an assigning editor read in RSS before telling a writer, "hey, cover this Scrabulous suit." Or maybe the writer should link the blog post that he read on it after getting the assignment, which linked the other blog post which linked the other blog post which linked the BBC story?



Can you help us here?

An addendum to my previous comment:


We have an IRC channel where all our writers and editors hang out and give feedback and edits on posts before they go live. So should we link all of the relevant posts seen by all those writers and editors who gave IRC feedback on the story to the writer?



Also, when you answer this, please be sure to tell us how the reader's interest is served by your suggestion.

MG,


>First of all I appreciate you commenting here, but I don't really appreciate the snide overtone.



So you attack my site with this shrill series of posts, calling us plagiarists, copycats, and declaring "Ars Technica is shit," and you don't like my tone? That's rich :)



>Others have in the past and many other have expressed similar thoughts in

>blog comments, on Twitter, on FriendFeed, etc... So either a)there is a conspiracy

>against Ars or b)you guys should consider a change in policy.



Ars Technica has been in business on the Internet for ten years. When you've been publishing for ten years, some people will decide they don't like you, and some of those people will post anonymous smears against you on the Internet. So this "I'm not the only one... I've heard from people off-the-record" isn't really evidence of anything other than the fact that there are haters in the world who will stir up muck anonymously.



Also, I find it ironic that someone who has appointed himself the arbiter of good journalism on the Internet is in the business of repeating, publishing, and citing anonymous smears.



>That also seems to imply that you had the Bits story in there and perhaps saw

>the headline and story, but I won't go into that.



No, please, go into that. Go into it because we go into it every single day, many many times a day. And once in a blue moon, after we've "gone into that," we wind up with a story that looks vaguely reminiscent of something that three or four other people out there on the Internet somehow wrote about the exact same set of facts, and we got "called out" for it.



So by all means, go into it. I want to hear your specific recommendations for how to deal with the different situations I described, because that is 100% of the issue here.



>It's just so simple to link out and as Mathew Ingram and others have pointed

>out in the past - what does it hurt to do it?



Again, who do you link to in the situations I described previously. What's "fair" in those specific situations, situations that we find ourselves in every day. I'm not being snide here--I'm asking you for specific, detailed examples of what you consider to be good linking practice in the scenarios I've mentioned.



>As I've said in the past, you're a member of the Internet, start linking like it.



Don't you think that talk like this is a bit presumptuous? All in one phrase, you've simultaneously defined "the Internet" on your own terms, ruled that we're a "member" of the Internet as you define it, and then based on that told us how to run our website. Seriously man, just slow down.



If you really wanted to do some good, as opposed to just attracting maximum attention to yourself, you'd have reached out to us via email the very first time this came up and asked for some clarification, before writing up that rant and hitting the "publish" button.



Again, you can't credibly set yourself up as the Internet's Ombudsman when you've decided that you're exempt from doing basic journalistic due diligence, like checking in with the target of an "expose" and at least asking them for a response before you go to press.

If Mr. Lemon didn't point out that one story in the 500 or so a large site like Ars releases in a month has a headline that has a passing resemblance to another headline out of the thousands of news sources online, the world wouldn't know about this injustice.


Of course, this is his second example. The first one where he claimed Ars ripped him off? It turned out he plagiarized another site for the idea he claimed was stolen from him, and had to apologize.



It has pointed out that other sites had headlines much like this before the New York Times, and the information was derived from a press release sent to all major news organizations.



After the story has been proven inaccurate, why hasn't it been corrected?

@anon - you know I can see your IP right? so I do know you're the same person leaving basically the same comment over and over. so i'll just ignore you like usual but give you a: nothing was proven inaccurate.

"As I'm sure I don't really have to explain again, sure you can play off any of these singular examples by themselves as "silly," but when there is a pattern of this happening, you simply can't write it off."


A pattern?



You've pointed out two or three examples of similar headlines/concepts, out of hundreds of posts made during the time period in question. Significantly fewer than one percent of posts does not constitute a pattern.



This example isn't even a good one--Scrabble jokes have been used in these headlines for *months*. The one you claim Ars copied didn't originate the idea anyway! Are you going to start railing against NYT for copying the goddamn idea without proper attribution?



Or is this just another ParisLemonParty circle-jerk?

>You ask how that will serve your readers? Well, maybe they
>would like some honesty; to know that Ars isn't the source of

>all tech news on the Internet.



Actually, I missed this in my earlier reply.



Do you honestly think that our readers don't know that we're not the only source of tech news on the Internet, or that we don't always get to news before everyone else?



Our readers are the most savvy bunch out there, and they know how to use RSS just like the next person. They come to Ars because we have something to say that they want to hear--because we add context and meaning to events that everyone knows about typically within minutes of their happening.



And when we can identify a source for breaking news or a novel angle, we cite it that source because that source broke the news or came up with the angle. We don't, however, cite a random blogger who linked someone who linked someone who linked someone who linked the AP, just because that blogger showed up first in a writer's or editor's chronologically sorted RSS feed. That doesn't add value for the reader, and it doesn't even really qualify as a "source."



But again, this just gets back to the fact that I'm not sure what you want from us here, because you haven't given us any kind of actionable feedback other than "link your sources," which we already do.

@jon - All of this is really simple. If Ars read a story somewhere else - acknowledge that and link to it? yes, wherever you found it. Why is that so hard to understand?


You ask why I write these posts rather than contact Ars, I DID try to contact Ars when I wrote my first post on the subject last year. I was very small then and heard nothing back - and never did in the comments either. So now that I have more of a voice it's convenient that you guys care, but would you have if I didn't raise a stink? Probably not.



The fact is I was a huge fan of Ars a few years back. This was prior to me using a feed reeder, so I didn't get very much tech news from many sources. But as soon as I started using that feed reader I started reading some of the stuff on Ars with the funny feeling that I'd already read many of the ideas presented elsewhere.



I will say that Ars has gotten better at linking over the past year or so, but there are still situations that arise such as this too often.



If you read the story somewhere else, link to it. It really is that simple.

@jon - so "Our readers are the most savvy bunch out there, and they know how to use RSS just like the next person. They come to Ars because we have something to say that they want to hear--because we add context and meaning to events that everyone knows about typically within minutes of their happening."


I'd love to hear how that piece on Scrabble provided anything new on the topic or was timely in any way. It has all the same info as the NYT piece and was a day later!



Context? Meaning? Minutes of their happening? You do recall the article we were talking about in the first place in this example right?

@jon - it's also good for everyone to know that you'll only link to those you deem worthy. you know, bloggers have original ideas too - sometimes much better ones than the big publications you seem to only be comfortable linking to.


why not just move Ars into print journalism and really save yourself the hassle of having to listen to people like me?

You're not addressing the argument: with hundreds of news sources in your feeds talking about the story, how do you choose one? In this case the source was a press release, so why link to that? Also, why not address the fact that the comments on your own blog don't seem to support your crusade? Of course, this is anon, so you're just going to claim you know my IP address is the same as someone else and ignore me.

@anon - no, yours is different, though oddly you appear to be from near the same area. 1) you chose one by using where you found the story. if they're not the source, do 2 minutes of homework and find the source, it's really not that hard, i do it everyday. 2) ars gave no indication that they got this story - again, a day later - from a press release 3) as for commenters, I'm aware that ars has trolls

Ive read you before MG, but your at your worst with stuff like this. It is not your responsibility to set ars policies for them or to dictate to them the terms on which they should or shouldnt link something.


I looked at ars the last time this came up and found tons of links to multiple sources in multiple stories. Now on the basis of one scrabble story with an obvious headline you claim they are ripping someone off because the story had been published and covered other places first.



If the story is brand new and covered by one site I understand linking back but by the time a story is all over the Internet theres no longer just one source to link to. Ars wrote a story with a headline like a lot of other folks. Lots of other places covered the same story. So what? Are you going to write all the other sites that didn't link another site, and yell at them, too?



Im sorry to say it but you come off like someone with a hornet up his butt.

1) you chose one by using where you found the story. if they're not the source, do 2 minutes of homework and find the source, it's really not that hard, i do it everyday." The story was found, as it has been pointed out, in a press release. Whether one or a dozen other blogs have run the story, the source remains the same. So it probably didn't take any homework. When you're a news organization with multiple writers and a few million readers, press releases must come like rain. The problem seems to be that when a story is written about a press release, every small blog like yours that wants attention screams that they deserve a link just because they wrote a blurb about the press release first.


2) ars gave no indication that they got this story - again, a day later - from a press release." I don't understand why you think you can make up rules about is right and wrong in journalism, especially with these odd attack stories, but I've never read anywhere about writing that said information gleaned from a press release, what is basically open, free information sent to literally hundreds if not thousands of news organizations, has to be stated explicitly.



In a number of months, across thousands of stories, you've found two that were somewhat similar, and in the first case you basically busted your own idea-theft. This isn't how to make a reputation in this business.

@anon - you do know that I write for a much larger site right? parislemon is just my personal blog. why always anonymous? give me a name.

I have no idea which anon you are referring to but I didnt know you wrote for another site until you said so.


I'd never heard of VentureBeat until today probably because I hadn't read the "About" section of this site. Its actually a good illustration of my point. Maybe VentureBeat is really big. Maybe its just as big as Ars. Either way Id never heard of it. If I wrote a story for the blog I dont have and I covered something VB covered without linking back to VB you seem to be saying Id be doing something wrong.



I realize the folks at ars do this for a living but theres a lot of sources out there for content. I dont see how you can claim that ars just has to be stealing or plagarizing someone especially if a story has already broken.

>@jon - it's also good for everyone to
>know that you'll only link to those you

>deem worthy. you know, bloggers have

>original ideas too - sometimes much better

>ones than the big publications you seem to

>only be comfortable linking to.



why not just move Ars into print journalism

>and really save yourself the hassle of

>having to listen to people like me?



Ok, this response is juvenile, and it's only a hair above name-calling.



You haven't addressed a single substantive point I've made, either about our sourcing practices or about your attempts at "journalism." And from your responses to some of the anonymous posters it doesn't even seem like you've read my posts all that closely, or else you'd know that doing news for us isn't as simple as "writer trolls RSS, writer spots a story, writer rewrites that story a day later and doesn't give a link to the site where he first saw the story."



Now, this may be how you write "news" (excepting the link part) for your blog and whatever publications you work for, but it isn't even remotely how news gets onto our front page--especially not news that has been out there and widely covered for a few days.



Anyway, I'm done here, and I'm not going to waste any more time on this than I already have.