World Press Trends – attribution part II

In yesterday’s post I lashed out at WAN’s World Press Trends for lifting almost complete blog-posts for without proper attribution.

Too soon, apparently…

On pages 247 and 248  I spotted two paragraphs that were taken – almost verbatim – from my blog. I searched for “Bakker” and “newspaperinnovation” and did not find any hits in the document.

By that time I was already so mad that I wrote the blog. What I should have done is going to page 250. Under the Austria text stood:

Source: CIA – The World Factbook; US State Department; VÖZ –Austrian Newspaper Association;
FDN Newsletter; Ars Technica; WAN-IFRA archives

Source: CIA – The World Factbook; US State Department; VÖZ –Austrian Newspaper Association; FDN Newsletter; Ars Technica; WAN-IFRA archives.

Okay, there it was: “FDN Newsletter”. Actually, FDN Newsletter is mentioned 53 times.

I admit I overreacted by calling WAN’s behavior ’stealing’ but I really hesitate in calling it innocent or real attribution. Is copying almost complete blog posts okay when you say “FDN Newsletter” at the very end?

I only checked Austria but I will do the same for other countries…. I already checked the entry for Martinique, also here “FDN Newsletter” is mentioned, although I never wrote anything at all about the country (where is it, anyway?).

I still think that the way of attribution is minimal and doesn’t do justice to what happens, direct quotes should be between quotation marks and sources in those cases should be complete, meaning the issue and probably the page number as well.

Comments are closed.