3 ms·

> No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. Just read the CBS article linked by the author. As she ment

> No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. Just read the CBS article linked by the author. As she mentions it always cited WaPo. And it now it properly cites her, too: "The Rwanda arrangements were first reported by the Washington Post, which also cited work by independent journalist Marisa Kabas, who had uncovered the recent deportation from the U.S. of an Iraqi national to Rwanda."

chimeracoder 1y ago
> Just read the CBS article linked by the author. As she mentions it always cited WaPo. And it now it properly cites her, too: I wouldn't say it properly cites her. It says that the Washington Post reported it first, which is nonsensical because in the very same sentence it says that Washington Post cited Kabas.
grumbel 1y ago
I'd be more impressed if they'd used a hyperlink. But that's apparently forbidden in modern journalism.
- pastage 1y ago
  It is not worth the bother. I really wish I had a source for this because it stills feels important, and I value links more than most. Links would be nice but it does not add enough value to be worth it, it actually costs too much and is easy to mess up. The ones who care will search for it, and the great majority can not be bothered. Source: internal statistic from a webbserver, with fact heavy articles. There were some types of articles that needed source material. But these kinds not so much. I say this because I was involved in a project that worked on QA and maintaining links. We wasted money on that project.
  - dannyobrien 1y ago
    Costs too much in what way? In time?
    - FrustratedMonky 1y ago
      a lot of sites don't add hyperlinks. that seems to be a new trend. don't think that is reason to criticize this particular article, for not doing what a lot of sites are also not doing. and yes, it does take time.
philipwhiuk 1y ago
> And it now it properly cites her, too No, it doesn't. It doesn't cite her work, it cites her.

chimeracoder 1y ago

> Just read the CBS article linked by the author. As she mentions it always cited WaPo. And it now it properly cites her, too: I wouldn't say it properly cites her. It says that the Washington Post reported it first, which is nonsensical because in the very same sentence it says that Washington Post cited Kabas.

grumbel 1y ago

I'd be more impressed if they'd used a hyperlink. But that's apparently forbidden in modern journalism.

pastage 1y ago
It is not worth the bother. I really wish I had a source for this because it stills feels important, and I value links more than most. Links would be nice but it does not add enough value to be worth it, it actually costs too much and is easy to mess up. The ones who care will search for it, and the great majority can not be bothered. Source: internal statistic from a webbserver, with fact heavy articles. There were some types of articles that needed source material. But these kinds not so much. I say this because I was involved in a project that worked on QA and maintaining links. We wasted money on that project.
- dannyobrien 1y ago
  Costs too much in what way? In time?
  - FrustratedMonky 1y ago
    a lot of sites don't add hyperlinks. that seems to be a new trend. don't think that is reason to criticize this particular article, for not doing what a lot of sites are also not doing. and yes, it does take time.

philipwhiuk 1y ago

> And it now it properly cites her, too No, it doesn't. It doesn't cite her work, it cites her.