An Apology to Our Readers and Our Peers
June 11th, 2008 (1:13pm) Edit Staff 17 CommentsTweet This
Earlier today, we posted an item written by one of our freelance contributors about little-used features of Gmail. What we did not realize was that the post lifted from an item published three days earlier on MakeUseOf.com.
Giga Omni Media considers such behavior unacceptable. As soon as we were alerted to the situation, we removed the post, and we have terminated all professional relations with the contributor. We sincerely apologize to the employees of MakeUseOf.com, in particular to the original post’s author, Ellie Harrison.
We would also like to apologize to our readers. Please be assured that going forward, we will be working even harder to ensure that such breaches of both ethics and professionalism do not occur. We will also be much more selective about the contributors with whom we work.
Carolyn Pritchard,
Managing Editor, Giga Omni Media
Judi Sohn,
Editor, Web Worker Daily
Om Malik,
Founder, Giga Omni Media
Web Work 101: How To Escape The Cubicle
I looked at both (had yours via feeds in outlook) and at the supposed orginal – and I don’t see the issue. The words are different, the screen shots are different, and only the titles are similar.
This post was NOT “lifted”, but possibly inspired a rewrite.
I have never been to MakeUseOf prior to today, nor will I go back. However, I will be reconsidering my use of your site, if you can so easily assume malfeasance.
Yeah I just took a look at the two posts. “Lifted” would be an unreasonably strong way to describe the post. Probably inspired, but definitely not plagiarized.
Professional writers understand that it doesn’t have to be a word-for-word copy to be plagiarism.
It’s very clear that the writer lifted the story idea and most of the legwork from the MakeUseOf site and did a light rewrite to make it appear to be original work. In a world in which all a publication really has is its credibility, showing him the door was a good call.
Leah & Brandon might be right, but the ethical lapse is a lack of attribution. If it’s inspiration, it should be sourced. if the author linked ethically, the problem would reveal itself or be resolved.
I agree with David, if he had come accross the article on MakeUseOf, and was inspired by it, s/he should have, and would have linked to it as the source or found via, but the fact s/he failed to do so clearly indicates it was an attempt at plagurism.
As one who makes his living blogging, and helping other bloggers be successful at writing, I applaud you doing this. It takes guts to stand up and admit fault.
Yes, attribution, props, even co-byline should all have been done.
It doesn’t pass in high school, it doesn’t pass here and now.
As a full time blogger, I have to second Tris’ comment. Well handled… sad that it happened, but well handled. The lesson for other writers that may be new to the scene: err on the side of caution, attribute appropriately and if you even question if you should or shouldn’t be doing something, that tells you that you probably shouldn’t be doing it. When in doubt, either go with your gut or go to your editor.
Good call guys!
Great to see a response like this… nothing more frustrating then seeing your work ripped off
well, here’s to hoping the original pops up in my feed reader.
in the future, will feed readers have an Outlook-like ‘unsend’ button? and then you’d get a big, fat ‘DELETED’ message in your feed. sweet! :D
back to attribution and all that – what the heck happened with all that? wasn’t attributor and some other companies actually supposed to do something about this? dang.
yep – lifted.
If all bloggers were held to these standards we’d have . . . very few bloggers.
“Leah & Brandon might be right, but the ethical lapse is a lack of attribution. If it’s inspiration, it should be sourced. if the author linked ethically, the problem would reveal itself or be resolved.”
Exactly! In a former life (pre-entrepreneur), I was a member of the Dept. of Liberal Arts & International Studies at the Colorado School of Mines (http://lais.mines.edu/) and David is right on track with the ethics, and legality, of the issue.
Leah and Brandon et. al. will want to brush up on these issues ASAP, if they want to continue being independent contractors… Violating professional standards hurts not only your own career, but the companies who syndicate your work as well (and THEY are happy to blacklist you among all their contacts — say goodbye to more than just a reference, in that case).
Kudos to WWD & GigaOm on making a clean admission, and a clean break from the writer.
And yes, the Net would be a much better place if such professionalism were the norm, rather than the exception…
@shmooth Attributor does provide an originality checking service for publishers that rely on UGC submissions or multiple authors within their network.
The other side of the business enables publishers to analyze where their content appears across the Internet and monetize either directly through licensing or indirectly through obtaining links and the downstream boost in search engine ranking. As a last resort, you can also send takedowns, removing the page entirely and/or from the search engine indices.
Good call guys
I guess Leah and Brandon are looking at a different version in their feed than I am. The one that appeared on WWD and then was deleted is clearly just a rewrite of the MakingUseOf post with new screenshots. Would it be actionable plagiarism? Probably not. Was it unethical? Absolutely.
Refreshing post, thank you.
keith
Enjoy reading your articles, this kind of post just gives me more confidence in your content. Thanks for letting us know. BTW, enjoyed reading that post – pity he didn’t credit the original.