Cut and paste without attribution...?
Discussion
Snopes, the internets fact checking site has retracted 60 articles after a BuzzFeed News investigation found that the site’s co-founder plagiarised articles from news outlets without giving attribution.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud...
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud...
Disappointing doesn't really cut it. Shame does in more than one sense. That said, it's hardly unique. I just expected better. Attribution is not a get out of gaol free card though.
I know second serial rights went out with dial up, but it's very irritating. I used to check published for money copy - it's easy enough - but gave up as there were so many. I've had images copied by the rich, either personally or via the companies, and despite telling them to put attribution or delete, I've been ignored. I've had a couple of videos reused. When I've complained I've been told the other person also claimed copyright, despite my publishing first. One of the abusers was a press/pr bloke. Obviously didn't care about relationships.
Snopes has done nothing that many other websites have done before them, but they've let themselves, and those who believed in them, down.
I know second serial rights went out with dial up, but it's very irritating. I used to check published for money copy - it's easy enough - but gave up as there were so many. I've had images copied by the rich, either personally or via the companies, and despite telling them to put attribution or delete, I've been ignored. I've had a couple of videos reused. When I've complained I've been told the other person also claimed copyright, despite my publishing first. One of the abusers was a press/pr bloke. Obviously didn't care about relationships.
Snopes has done nothing that many other websites have done before them, but they've let themselves, and those who believed in them, down.
Although it's - gasp - terrible to some, I tend to think along the lines of "...and nothing of value was lost". Fact checking organisations are just another way to sway or cement public opinion. They're great fun for reading about urban legends about blowing up whales and did Aerosmith plug extension cords into the televisions they threw out of their hotel windows into the swimming pool below so they could watch them on the way down. But for current affairs, and especially politics, they're way out of their depth and are ripe for abuse.
rodericb said:
Although it's - gasp - terrible to some, I tend to think along the lines of "...and nothing of value was lost". Fact checking organisations are just another way to sway or cement public opinion. They're great fun for reading about urban legends about blowing up whales and did Aerosmith plug extension cords into the televisions they threw out of their hotel windows into the swimming pool below so they could watch them on the way down. But for current affairs, and especially politics, they're way out of their depth and are ripe for abuse.
Finding the truth about urban myths is all good fun and games, but I disagree with your opinion on fact checking politicians. I don't have time to personally fact check everything that politicians are spouting, so need help to filter out the most egregious 'fibs'. Sure they can be abused, but I think the people running them know that as soon as they abuse their role, then they run the risk of totally losing their credibility. The above actions by Snopes has eroded that trust a little.
).tangerine_sedge said:
Finding the truth about urban myths is all good fun and games, but I disagree with your opinion on fact checking politicians. I don't have time to personally fact check everything that politicians are spouting, so need help to filter out the most egregious 'fibs'. Sure they can be abused, but I think the people running them know that as soon as they abuse their role, then they run the risk of totally losing their credibility. The above actions by Snopes has eroded that trust a little.
I thought the same at one point but misinformation and propaganda, in the US especially, has become such an art form that services like Snopes will have been co-opted to some extent. If you want to win an election you only need to get a majority - not lay waste to the opposition, so the little bit of polish or a bit of a smudge one can release over Snopes et al is but one string in the bow. Whoever is controlling the fact checking isn't going to stuff it up so anything will be extremely subtle and I reckon it'd be more about what it leaves out than what it includes.I think that this little confessional will actually bolster the standing of Snopes to those who use it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff