Reply in-line :-
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 17:02, Atanu Datta lfyedit2@efyindia.com wrote:
<snip>
Yes, exactly. So, you see online articles from The Register, Inquirer, news.com, Znet, etc., that frequently quote statements made in the public by a such an such person published in some other media. That's attribution.
Hi all,
I know very little but lemme use three websites which I feel are pretty good in giving quotes/sources of things.
a. http://lwn.net b. http://www.phoronix.com c. http://en.wikipedia.org
You will see that almost all the articles would give a hyperlink or cite the source in its entirety.
While one can say they are an online medium but good magazines do take care to give hyperlinks as and where possible.
As was pointed out, it just took 4 keywords to know the original post.
otherwise it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a story/article for something those words which form an option is attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs a journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which is what happened in this case.
Afaik there was no reference to the source. (http://ilug-bom...whatever) at best there was afair a reference to Rony Bill in the Mumbal lug (as you probably correctly point out), implying that he said that the product was very good, whereas in fact he was saying exactly the opposite, which you make no metion of.
So, I ask again: Can I be pointed at the mail so that I can analyse the matter? Or is it asking too much? If there's any issue, I am ready to own up in public here. Savvy?
If you think we've done something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media company that you think abides to a proper journalistic procedure.
I do read those and i dare say you guys have a loooooong way to go on all counts. Well at least you aim high. But long before you achieve those standards you need to have the guts to print the comments that show what readers think about you.
lol!! We're not trying to be an NYT or a Guardian. So, you got our aim totally wrong. Aim is to provide a medium to Indians or otherwise who'd want to share some info with the readers. The deal is simple: authors get paid (if they think the payment is not substantial, they can chose not to write also, we're not forcing anyone) and we compile and publish a mag and try and earn some profits that pays the staff's salaries.
Besides, the articles are licensed under CC-by-SA (unlike most other media companies, who sit on the material thinking it's *their* IP), so that those who are willing can extend/update the info published.
Lemme take this opportunity to give another insight or angle on things. Frankly, I haven't seen this happening. Its one thing to say the articles are CC-by-SA and one thing to actually give space so others can read the article.
I had spoken in number of emails since 2006 asking LFY why couldn't they reproduce the article in an online format after the month is over and till date I haven't been able to see that happen.
For e.g. look at December's issue.
http://lfymag.com/archives.asp?author=Select+Author&month=12&year=20...
I don't see any articles which I can read therein. There is of course the way (for e.g. Frederick and Niyam have their own sites) but what about other authors who don't have the time or the inclination or the space to do the same.
Contrast this with the way http://lwn.net runs.
They have articles which are paid for a week and then its in public domain. This is something that LFY should strive to do. And I don't think we as reading public would be averse to having a few ads done discreetly if that is what is needed to make it self-sustaining (as lwn.net)
As I see this would give longevity to the articles and lot of IP/ideas/procedures/packages which otherwise would perhaps not survive.
Atanu, what do you say?
<snip>
Best, Atanu