On Tuesday 13 January 2009 17:02, Atanu Datta wrote: > >> 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.
Neat how do explain the truncation. > >> 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? Google Rony Bill LFY ilug-bom > >> 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. Heck nothing wrong in aiming high in comparison to being aimless. > > > anyway lets see if this one also is so much water on a ducks > > back. > > Whatever you mean by this statement... EFY / LFY does not seem to change. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
