4 ms·
I don't understand your complaint, especially since the OC register article you seem to like for whatever reason is not the first to publish and is itself just
by crunchlibrarian 8y ago
I don't understand your complaint, especially since the OC register article you seem to like for whatever reason is not the first to publish and is itself just a cribbed knockoff.
Are we expected to research every URL and find the first to report on it no matter what? Even if it's obscure, out of date, or wrong?
- dang 8y agoScanning an article for a link to a more original source is one manual step. That's not hard, since one presumably reads an article before submitting it and the link to the other source is usually prominent, like it was above. Another recent case is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17007441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17007441. If the earlier article is out of date or wrong, then presumably the new link includes significant new information, in which case it's not a knockoff. The OCR article looked to me like original reporting, but if you know of another piece that it's copying, we can change the URL again. By "cribbed knockoff" I mean the thing that media properties do where they lift material from somewhere, make a fig leaf's worth of modification, and publish it themselves. Some people call this blogspam, but that's a contested word. There are plenty of these sites. If knockoffs are all they do, we ban them, but some also publish original articles, and we don't want to exclude those.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoYou do know who dang is, right?
- anigbrowl 8y agoAre we expected to research every URL and find the first to report on it no matter what? Not always but primary sources are definitely preferred. If it's a science paper split the difference, eg an explainer article may provide valuable context missing from a highly technical paper, but then it's nice to link the paper in the comments.