 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||||
it seems there has been much blog chatter of late about what makes a blog a blog. is it about linking, is it about creating new and creative content, is it about what you had for lunch tuesday? my general attitude is live and let live, que sera sera, but with the proliferation of so many bad blogs, i find myself pondering the issue.
about week ago i read a post that took the issue to a whole new level for me. it has been driving me nuts for the past week, so i post this as a clearing house for my own mental health. i am very interested in your opinion.
i am a regular reader of "author a". i have always marveled at her site, and i consider her writings to be very clever. about a week ago, one of her posts had a line that sounded familiar to me. i immediately assumed it was a re-post, but it was not marked as such.
i cut and pasted the text line into google. the first search return led me to a page with identical text. identical down to the punctuation, she had not even an attempted to rewrite it. she gave no link or credit to the original author.
am i wrong in being upset about such a silly thing? is blogging such a casual medium that this is an accepted practice? should i let the person know, that i know the origins of the post? should i just forget about it and go back to duct taping my home (there really are much bigger things to worry about)?
the biggest disappointment is the realization that previous posts may have been plagiarized and the author is not at all the person i grew to enjoy.
you have a promise from me that all content here at ultramicroscopic is my own (and copyrighted!) unless otherwise denoted.
Posted by griff at February 26, 2003 12:58 PM