Twitter and self plagiarism

I look forward to Rhody's first day as newspaper publisher, where everything in print is original and appearing for first time on any medium. Editorial board meets midday to decide if it's acceptable to tweet references to that day's copy without rewriting significantly. Minutes are kept at meeting, but not reprinted for fear of firing/lawsuit.

 

While Rhody is misguided on what "plagiarism" means, as well as what "old" and "published" mean, he's right that it is lazy and hacky.

I just don't get why he's acting like he just discovered that lazy hacks exist, and sometimes they stay employed over more deserving people.

 

Yes.

The New York Times.

Frequently.

 

Well I'm done defending my position.
I have a hard line when it comes to ethics and I see absolutely nothing ethical about using tweets from the last two weeks and using them just about word for word in a column. I call it plagiarism, you guys disagree.
I'll keep my mouth shut and let the business continue its downward trend.

 

If only Rhody could save the industry.

 

tidbit
tidbit
tidbit
tidbit

For those who don't know, I have a Twitter account. Here are some of my recent tweets:

tweet
tweet
tweet
tweet

(Is a disclaimer all that would make you happy, Rhody?)

 

Yes.

 

Ethical violation or not, you're going to find the majority of readers don't care. Furthermore, between this blog, in which you very easily throw around the world plagiarism (a big no-no from one journalist to another unless it is absolutely certain, and judging by this thread, it is not), and your column about the TV person who recreated the shot of the tournament-clinching putt, I can only surmise you're not making many friends in the media industry in what is presumably a small contingent in Rhode Island.

You said to another poster to "grow up" when they called you a tattle tale. Maybe, just maybe, it's time for you to grow up and keep your opinions to yourself. Calling people out on things like this -- things readers don't really care about -- isn't going to help you get a job any faster, if at all. While you're the savior of the ethical code of journalism, you're burning bridges with potential employers, and at some point you'll have to decide what is more important.

 

The English language and every known definition of the word disagrees with you.

The definition of plagiarism is "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own."

Even with the fairly new buzzword of "self plagiarism," that would, as far as I can see, only apply to work you did previously and for which you sold the copyright to another publisher.

Twitter is NOT bound by copyrights, simply because the word limits on tweets don't allow for anything to reach the level of copyrightable material.

 

Eh, fuck that.

I admire his willingness to take a stand, damned be the consequences. That is grown up to me.

But his opinion is simply wrong here.

 

By calling it plagiarism you turned a reasonable commentary on columnist laziness into a windmill-tilting session.

 

His name is attached to the blog. The people in Rhode Island know who wrote it. He put principles - even if those principles here are misguided - above self-interest.