For example I am a subject matter expert in the field of GPS tracking. Articles about innovations in GPS tracking frequently pop up that don’t really explain the news item very well. I personally find nothing wrong at all with quoting the original source and furnishing additional information or informed comment on the original author’s article … how else will people learn more if I don’t?

I’m certainly against copying for the sake of laziness, but when I value add I feel everyone gains. As far as the question of who gets the socila bookmarking credit? Well, that’s personal choice of the person who decides to bookmark or not.

For example I am a subject matter expert in the field of GPS tracking. Articles about innovations in GPS tracking frequently pop up that don’t really explain the news item very well. I personally find nothing wrong at all with quoting the original source and furnishing additional information or informed comment on the original author’s article … how else will people learn more if I don’t?

I’m certainly against copying for the sake of laziness, but when I value add I feel everyone gains. As far as the question of who gets the socila bookmarking credit? Well, that’s personal choice of the person who decides to bookmark or not.

However, if you have come up with something to say, and this inspriration comes from other works, I think you should quote the source whenever possible.

Oh..and who cares who gets the traffic? Write good content because it’s fun and you love doing it. If you write it and it’s good, they will come

(FYI: I do care about my traffic, I’m just trying to point out it’s not my biggest goal)

I’m also a little sensitive since the entire concept of my site is to help other sites get noticed. My goal is not to steal traffic from others, it’s to try and give more traffic to others. I’m fairly confident the other sites you list like Boing Boing and Engadget give out lots of traffic to others as well (not that I’m comparing)

So, if you wanted to ‘start a firestorm’ with your post…you got my vote

However, if you have come up with something to say, and this inspriration comes from other works, I think you should quote the source whenever possible.

Oh..and who cares who gets the traffic? Write good content because it’s fun and you love doing it. If you write it and it’s good, they will come

(FYI: I do care about my traffic, I’m just trying to point out it’s not my biggest goal)

I’m also a little sensitive since the entire concept of my site is to help other sites get noticed. My goal is not to steal traffic from others, it’s to try and give more traffic to others. I’m fairly confident the other sites you list like Boing Boing and Engadget give out lots of traffic to others as well (not that I’m comparing)

So, if you wanted to ‘start a firestorm’ with your post…you got my vote

All that said, as a journalist who has has seen his reporting entirely re-incarnated in a different form with either no or scant attribution, I couldn’t help but feel a little burned in those moments.

And, frankly, the blogosphere is actually *better* about this than mainstream media, because in the blogosphere attribution is the norm, whereas in the MSM it’s considered a courtesy.

I think the bottom line for me is that I think attribution is great, and there should be more of it. That’s why I’ve begun putting attribution for the source of my borrowed blog entries at the *top* of my posts, rather than just saying “Via so and so” at the bottom. Because let’s face it – while it’s nice to be credited, it’s also nice to get the traffic. I’d like to see more attributions that urge readers to go check out the original version of an article, rather than just re-reporting it in a way that provides the reader no incentive to do so.

Otherwise, it eliminates the incentive to do the real work that fuels all these great ideas the blogosphere is always talmudically debating.

All that said, as a journalist who has has seen his reporting entirely re-incarnated in a different form with either no or scant attribution, I couldn’t help but feel a little burned in those moments.

And, frankly, the blogosphere is actually *better* about this than mainstream media, because in the blogosphere attribution is the norm, whereas in the MSM it’s considered a courtesy.

I think the bottom line for me is that I think attribution is great, and there should be more of it. That’s why I’ve begun putting attribution for the source of my borrowed blog entries at the *top* of my posts, rather than just saying “Via so and so” at the bottom. Because let’s face it – while it’s nice to be credited, it’s also nice to get the traffic. I’d like to see more attributions that urge readers to go check out the original version of an article, rather than just re-reporting it in a way that provides the reader no incentive to do so.

Otherwise, it eliminates the incentive to do the real work that fuels all these great ideas the blogosphere is always talmudically debating.

What really turn me off are the autogenerated blogs and sites which rip off content from different sites into one site and earning huge money via adsense..black hatters and many of the gurus are also using those methods to earn money…these things go in the underground but nobody dares to bring them out…

and are you encouraging people to rip off other people content..

What really turn me off are the autogenerated blogs and sites which rip off content from different sites into one site and earning huge money via adsense..black hatters and many of the gurus are also using those methods to earn money…these things go in the underground but nobody dares to bring them out…

and are you encouraging people to rip off other people content..

Just as authors read other books, aggregate concepts, examples, etc. to build their new one (who really goes back to the last pages to find and read up the original material?), reporting today does the same thing: build upon other written material.

Unless it is a shameless copy (without too much value add), even making a ‘boringly long’ article ‘pithy’ is (IMHO) acceptable if the original article is credited.

Just as authors read other books, aggregate concepts, examples, etc. to build their new one (who really goes back to the last pages to find and read up the original material?), reporting today does the same thing: build upon other written material.

Unless it is a shameless copy (without too much value add), even making a ‘boringly long’ article ‘pithy’ is (IMHO) acceptable if the original article is credited.