On Tue, January 13, 2009 4:34 pm, jtd said:
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 15:57, Atanu Datta wrote:
On Tue, January 13, 2009 3:23 pm, jtd said:
On Monday 12 January 2009 23:46, Atanu Datta wrote:
On Mon, January 12, 2009 11:20 pm, Rony said:
Philip Tellis wrote:
>> why license at all?
IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. I believe that was always the intent - at least as far back as I can remember. Perhaps we should make this explicit in the guidelines so that people who don't like that can refrain from mailing the list.
Just want to mention my experience with messages on this list. I had written a mail about an issue of LFY and it included a balanced view. In the next month's issue I find my message on this list being printed in the letters section and they neatly assembled only those lines that were positive about LFY. All this without my knowledge of the same.
Regret that permission was not taken from you in addition to you not being notified about it. If you could direct me to the mail (from the mailing list archives) and the issue of LFY where it was published, it'd help me review that matter.
Dont tell me your editors dont know anything about attributions and copyright. If they quote partly, especially without permission they should point out the source.
Quoting someone automatically becomes an attribution,
What do you mean "automatically"?. You mean the article has comments scrapped from the web without human intervention.
Yes, exactly. So, you see online articles from The Register, Inquirer, news.com, Znet, etc., that frequently quote statements made in the public by a such an such person published in some other media. That's attribution.
otherwise it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a story/article for something those words which form an option is attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs a journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which is what happened in this case.
Afaik there was no reference to the source. (http://ilug-bom...whatever) at best there was afair a reference to Rony Bill in the Mumbal lug (as you probably correctly point out), implying that he said that the product was very good, whereas in fact he was saying exactly the opposite, which you make no metion of.
So, I ask again: Can I be pointed at the mail so that I can analyse the matter? Or is it asking too much? If there's any issue, I am ready to own up in public here. Savvy?
If you think we've done something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media company that you think abides to a proper journalistic procedure.
I do read those and i dare say you guys have a loooooong way to go on all counts. Well at least you aim high. But long before you achieve those standards you need to have the guts to print the comments that show what readers think about you.
lol!! We're not trying to be an NYT or a Guardian. So, you got our aim totally wrong. Aim is to provide a medium to Indians or otherwise who'd want to share some info with the readers. The deal is simple: authors get paid (if they think the payment is not substantial, they can chose not to write also, we're not forcing anyone) and we compile and publish a mag and try and earn some profits that pays the staff's salaries.
Besides, the articles are licensed under CC-by-SA (unlike most other media companies, who sit on the material thinking it's *their* IP), so that those who are willing can extend/update the info published.
Quoting half of somenone's statement to imply exactly the opposite of what he said is dishonesty my dear fellow. The question of attribs and copyright stem from the fact that your eds did something, that to us smacks of dishonesty.
Again, I need to analyse the source. Can I be provided the info that I asked for in the first mail?
anyway lets see if this one also is so much water on a ducks back.
Whatever you mean by this statement...
Best, Atanu