On Tue, January 13, 2009 9:07 pm, shirish said: > Reply in-line :- > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 17:02, Atanu Datta <[email protected]> wrote: > > <snip> > >> 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. > > Hi all, > > I know very little but lemme use three websites which I feel are > pretty good in giving quotes/sources of things. > > a. http://lwn.net > b. http://www.phoronix.com > c. http://en.wikipedia.org > > You will see that almost all the articles would give a hyperlink or > cite the source in its entirety. > > While one can say they are an online medium but good magazines do take > care to give hyperlinks as and where possible.
Point taken and I completely agree! :-) > As was pointed out, it just took 4 keywords to know the original post. > > >>>> 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. > > Lemme take this opportunity to give another insight or angle on > things. Frankly, I haven't seen this happening. Its one thing to say > the articles are CC-by-SA and one thing to actually give space so > others can read the article. > > I had spoken in number of emails since 2006 asking LFY why couldn't > they reproduce the article in an online format after the month is over > and till date I haven't been able to see that happen. > > For e.g. look at December's issue. > > http://lfymag.com/archives.asp?author=Select+Author&month=12&year=2008&total=1&id=13&Submit=Search There's been some infrastructure problem. If you notice the LFY brochure site that you've pointed to is on ASP, because it's maintained and co-hosted by shared resources with the parent company, which is EFY. The OpenITis.com site has been lying idle in alpha stage for a while now, due to resource constraints. However, the good news is, we now have a dedicated Web team again, with a background in social networking, so things should be up and running at linuxforu.com pretty soon. Of course, once the site is up and the articles are uploaded, the CC-by-SA licensing would make a whole lot of sense. > I don't see any articles which I can read therein. There is of course > the way (for e.g. Frederick and Niyam have their own sites) but what > about other authors who don't have the time or the inclination or the > space to do the same. > > Contrast this with the way http://lwn.net runs. > > They have articles which are paid for a week and then its in public > domain. This is something that LFY should strive to do. And I don't > think we as reading public would be averse to having a few ads done > discreetly if that is what is needed to make it self-sustaining (as > lwn.net) > > As I see this would give longevity to the articles and lot of > IP/ideas/procedures/packages which otherwise would perhaps not > survive. > > Atanu, what do you say? Point taken! I've been involved with the discussions about an online presence for a while now and guess things should start going online within a couple of months, if not sooner. Best, Atanu -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
