Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Meta-blogging :: Create or copy?
I've only once had the dubious honour of having an entire post copied and pasted into someone else's blog. Steve Taylor has noticed it happening to him recently and asked "why?" in a very well natured way. (Steve's blog, particular post)
Apart from legal issues raised about advertising incomes and the creative commons license, what ethical framework could we consider when copying posts? I propose two common-sense guidelines.
1. Always, always reference your source.
A name, a link, a pointer on the way. It's easy, painless and often legally required.
2. There's no point in reproducing without critiquing.
If you have nothing to add, don't press publish.
Reproduction of quotes and paragraphs can be valid and useful, for example, quoting something you wish to amplify on. Obviously replicating posts without commentary doesn't fall inside this guideline. Many use their blogs as a "virtual memory". In this case a link or the relevant sentence/paragraph should fit the blogger's need adequately.
Steve questions an "ethical commitment to streamlining information". I find this intriguing: Does html "take up space"? Is it a philosophical or aesthetic principle? Or is it taking best advantage of the interconnected system? In any case, it is interesting and, in general, I agree: streamline. For example, whenever I'm referring to something in general, I link without reproducing.
In the end, an organism such as the blogosphere is always going to throw up large amounts of redundancy. Lets do our best to keep that to a minimum.
