3 ms·

I think you brought up several interesting points,but to answer the first question, So, why is BoingBoing's reproduction more wrong than any other? BoingBoing'

I think you brought up several interesting points,but to answer the first question, So, why is BoingBoing's reproduction more wrong than any other? BoingBoing's re-posting does not provide additional value and in fact reduces value. The additional value that Letters of Note provides is in finding the content in the real world, digitizing, and including necessary references so that all possible context is included. BoingBoing did the opposite, they added no new value and reduced value by removing context and citations. I agree with the continuous stream being a part of the total value, but on a per article basis they provided no additional value to this piece. I don't argue that aggregation is bad, I agree the manner in which it took place.

joebadmo 15y ago
Hey, thanks for the reasonable reply. I think this is an important discussion to have. If you follow the links all the way through, they end at a gutenberg project book. It's already digitized. They did provide a source of evidence for the veracity of the letter, which is great. (I'll note here that BB, in an update, also points to evidence in a Snopes message board thread.) I don't think I explained what I meant by 'context' very well, though. I meant that Letters of Note provides value not by any individual letter, but by providing a stream of letters. That's its value prop. It means it's easier for anyone interested in the particular kind of content it's aggregating to get that content, by following Letters of Note. BoingBoing's context/stream is different, a lot less specific about its topicality, but provides a similar kind of value: it aggregates things that its readers will find interesting. Its context is 'interesting things.' And not only does it point to the specific piece of content, but, by linking, it also points to Letters of Note, another context/stream that its readers might find interesting. I more or less agree with you that it'd be more polite of BB to link more prominently and include less of the content in its post, but I think they do enough that anyone who is interested enough in that piece of content will follow the link to see more.
- tenpoundhammer 15y ago
  I am a reasonable person. I disagree with your final statement, I think that BB posts far too many of the details for anyone to want to click through. I also think they present in a way that says there is not more content to be seen.

joebadmo 15y ago

Hey, thanks for the reasonable reply. I think this is an important discussion to have. If you follow the links all the way through, they end at a gutenberg project book. It's already digitized. They did provide a source of evidence for the veracity of the letter, which is great. (I'll note here that BB, in an update, also points to evidence in a Snopes message board thread.) I don't think I explained what I meant by 'context' very well, though. I meant that Letters of Note provides value not by any individual letter, but by providing a stream of letters. That's its value prop. It means it's easier for anyone interested in the particular kind of content it's aggregating to get that content, by following Letters of Note. BoingBoing's context/stream is different, a lot less specific about its topicality, but provides a similar kind of value: it aggregates things that its readers will find interesting. Its context is 'interesting things.' And not only does it point to the specific piece of content, but, by linking, it also points to Letters of Note, another context/stream that its readers might find interesting. I more or less agree with you that it'd be more polite of BB to link more prominently and include less of the content in its post, but I think they do enough that anyone who is interested enough in that piece of content will follow the link to see more.

tenpoundhammer 15y ago
I am a reasonable person. I disagree with your final statement, I think that BB posts far too many of the details for anyone to want to click through. I also think they present in a way that says there is not more content to be seen.