ursamajor: Scully knows how to use her Sig Sauer. And she's pissed. (not your damsel in distress)
I know I promised to talk about my NYC and Chapel Hill trips, but first: the new Delicious debuted this morning, and I am ... ambivalent both looking for a temporary replacement (though I'll probably default to freelish.us for awhile, though that appears to be down, and I hope it's temporary?), and furious at myself for not getting off my butt and making the damned mockups for Dreamwidth's bookmarking/memorification project when I knew this day was coming.


1. Where are you currently sharing your bookmarks? How well does it work for social - letting me follow my friends' bookmarkings, letting me browse everybody's bookmarks on a specific topic, etc?

2. Given that I am currently highly motivated to make a design for it: What would you want in a Dreamwidth-based social bookmarking service?

Editing as I find things missing that were key to my usage of the old Delicious. For a Dreamwidth-integrated/based bookmarking service, what do you want to see? (Especially if it's not already listed here, where the Memories Overhaul project was originally filed. Edit: [staff profile] denise wrote up a spec awhile back when originally considering the Memories overhaul, though admittedly it does not word-wrap in my browser, so that makes it a bit hard to read. It's fairly encompassing, though! Is there anything you think is missing?)

Things I like about the new Delicious:
- multi-word, comma-separated tags. (AVOS' implementation, where they harrass you every single time you try to *make* one of these new multi-word, comma-separated tags? Not so much.)

Things I miss about the old Delicious (editing as we go):
- network pages. Dear AVOS, YOU FAIL AT SOCIAL. The cornerstone of social is "let me see what my friends/the people I follow are doing/sharing here." YOU'RE NOT LETTING ME DO THAT.
- RSS feeds.
- tag pages.
- the ability to see more than 10 links per page, or 10 links per *tag*.
- the ability to search "everyone's bookmarks," "my network's bookmarks," or "just my bookmarks."
- the ability to use / in tags without problems
- a working extension, though a working bookmarklet would do too. (implementation note beyond my ken: ajaxy bookmarking window would be lovely rather than a popup; does that limit what one can do with making a bookmark?)
- tag auto-complete when bookmarking.
- tag subscription! I can see where the idea of following a stack on AVOS-delicious came from that, but if I want to follow someone's links about Pottermore, for example, why should they have to create a stack just so I can follow that tag?
ursamajor: people on the beach watching the ocean (Default)
So [livejournal.com profile] shadesong linked this morning to a story about a blogger whose writing was republished in a print magazine without her permission.

When called on it, the editor of said magazine, Cooks Source, responded as follows:

"I have been doing this for 3 decades ... I do know about copyright laws ... the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace."

Said editor goes on to tell [livejournal.com profile] illadore that the article was in "very bad need of editing" (said article was originally written in Middle English), and that if anything, the writer should compensate the editor.

[livejournal.com profile] illadore posts.

Influential people take note and spread the word. Smart Bitches, Boing Boing, BlogHer, Serious Eats, Scalzi, MeFi. (Most recently, Neil Gaiman.)

Somebody notices that Cooks Source failed to claim the "cookssource" username on Twitter, and creates @cookssource as a satirical account. @crookssource is created in short order as well.

People start flocking to the Cooks Source Facebook page. The only way one can interact with a company on its Facebook page/wall is by "liking" it. Cooks Source's "likes" have more than tripled since breakfast in their time zone (from ~300 to almost 1000 now), but they're also receiving criticism on their wall at a rate of over 600 posts per *hour*.

The flocks start investigating other articles published by Cooks Source. Among the victims? The Food Network (original), NPR (original), and Disney (original; Disney owns Recipes Today). They also find that Cooks Source's partner magazine, Travel Source, is composed of similarly stolen articles.

Now, Cooks Source's advertisers are pulling their support, and the website for both magazines is essentially offline.

I don't expect either magazine to be around for much longer, which is too bad, because I'll be in Western Mass in a couple of weekends. Perhaps the remaining copies will fuel the bonfire at Homecoming?


So, could anything have saved Cooks Source? If it had been a case of one article, possibly. The asked for apology and donation would have gone a ways towards people giving the editor the benefit of the doubt. But for the editor to have apologized, she would have had to understand that she'd done something wrong. Given just how large a percent of Cooks Source articles were reprinted without permission, based on the editor's fundamentally flawed understanding of copyright as applied to the internet? Given her statement about the internet being all "public domain"? She definitely does not understand.

What should the editor have done, besides not using articles she didn't have permission to use?

1. Responded to the author with a professional, rational, and respectful email.
2. Closed down the ability for others to post directly to the Facebook wall (and really, not to have allowed it in the first place), but posted a statement explaining how they were planning to address this issue and similar issues in the future.
3. Linked that post to Twitter.

Today's incident has been a very thorough introduction to understanding the modern internet - especially given the power of social media and social networking and basic word-of-mouth. Because the editor does not understand the modern internet, she didn't claim the "cookssource" namespace on Twitter - somebody else did, and used it to her company's detriment. Because the editor does not understand the modern internet, she hasn't turned off the ability for others to post directly to the Cooks Source Facebook page wall, nor has she responded with any sort of public apology (or responded at all). Because the editor does not understand the modern internet, she sent a poorly-thought-out, inaccurate email that will haunt her for some time to come.


ursamajor: people on the beach watching the ocean (Default)
she of the remarkable biochemical capabilities!

October 2016

2 3456 78
9 10 1112 131415
16 17 18 19202122
2324 2526 2728 29


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 20th, 2017 08:43 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios